UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- Date
- 2025-03-09
Summary
Document 31 in United States v. Zachary Kameron Ramyard, Case No. 24-CR-20382-DPG-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered March 9, 2025, is the defendant's motion for a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) and for concurrent sentencing. The motion states he pleaded guilty on October 31, 2024 to Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and that the presentence report's range of 108 to 135 months rests on errors; his objections propose 63 to 78 months. It asks for a variance based on a psychological evaluation filed under seal and on his age during the charged conduct under U.S.S.G. §5H1.1. It asks that the sentence run concurrently with a ninety-seven (97) month sentence imposed December 12, 2023 in Case No. 6:23-CR-00089-RBD-DCI-1. Defense counsel Ana M. Davide signs the motion.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 24-CR-20382-DPG-1
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZACHARY KAMERON RAMYARD,
Defendant,
__________________________________/
DEFENDANT, ZACHARY KAMERON RAMYARD’S
MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE PURSUANT TO THE
TITLE 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) FACTORS AND FOR CONCURRENT SENTENCING
COMES NOW the Defendant, ZACHARY KAMERON RAMYARD (hereinafter also
referred to as “Mr. Ramyard”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and presents herewith, his
Motion for Downward Variance pursuant to the Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) Factors and for
Concurrent Sentencing, and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
At the start, it should be clear that Zachary Kameron Ramyard is sincerely remorseful for
his criminal conduct and acknowledges that the offense to which he has entered his plea of guilty
is of a serious nature. Further, he wholly realizes the impact his decision to become involved in
this criminal conduct as well as his earlier criminal conduct will have upon his family and his
future, and knows that he has nobody to blame but himself. Mr. Ramyard fully accepts
responsibility for his conduct as discussed below.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that Federal sentencing demands that every
convicted person be treated as an individual and “every case as a unique study in the human failings
that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and punishment to ensue.” Gall v. United
States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 589 (2007).
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 2 of 13
There is one point counsel believes this Court should consider closely. That is the fact that
in August of 2020, when the criminal conduct commenced, Zachary Ramyard had just turned
nineteen (19) years of age, and when the criminal conduct concluded in August of 2022, he was
merely twenty-one (21) years of age.
It is the sincere desire that this Honorable Court will examine Mr. Ramyard’s “human
failings” along with the other aspects of his life, and find that the sentence to be imposed in this
case should run concurrently with the ninety-seven (97) month sentence of imprisonment imposed
on December 12, 2023 in the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) in the case entitled
United States v. Zachary Ramyard, bearing Case No. 6:23-CR-00089-RBD-DCI-1. [D.E. 75]
It is additionally requested that this Court consider the significant factors brought out in
the Psychological Evaluation Report of Michael J. DiTomasso, Ph.D. while fashioning the
appropriate sentence in this case.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On October 31, 2024, Zachary Kameron Ramyard pled guilty to Count 1 of the
Indictment which charges conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. [D.E.
14]
2. The Presentence Investigation Report provides at paragraph 102 as follows: “Based
upon a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of I, the guideline imprisonment
range is 108 to 135 months.” [D.E. 23]. However, that guideline calculation is the result of various
scrivener’s errors in the Presentence Investigation Report.
Further, paragraph 103 of the PSR provides, “Pursuant to § 5Gl.3(d), in any other case
involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense may be
2
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 3 of 13
imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged
term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.”
3. The Defendant has filed Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, therein
objecting to the loss amount and asserting that the loss amount should read more than $550,000
and no more than $1,500,000, resulting in a 14-level increase under Guidelines Section 2B
1.1(b)(1)(H); that the Defendant should not receive the two (2) level enhancement for sophisticated
means, and asserting that although, U.S.S.G. §4A1.2(d)(2)(B) assigns one (1) criminal history
point under §4A1.1(c) for each adult or juvenile sentence imposed within five years of the
defendant's commencement of the instant offense not covered in subparagraph (A), such
application of that one (1) additional criminal history point would result in a gross overstatement
of the Defendant’s criminal history. The Objections conclude that the appropriate advisory
guidelines sentence range should read as follows: Based on a total offense level of 25 and a criminal
history category of II, the advisory guideline imprisonment range is 63 to 78 months. [D.E. 25]
4. On March 3, 2025, the Government filed its response to the Defendant’s objections,
in-part agreeing that the loss amount should read more than $550,000 and no more than
$1,500,000, resulting in a 14-level increase under Guidelines Section 2B 1.1(b)(1)(H). [D.E. 27]
5. The sentencing hearing is presently scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 9:30
a.m. [D.E. 26]
6. The within Motion for Downward Variance pursuant to the Title 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a) Factors and for Concurrent Sentencing is submitted in the utmost of good faith and in
the interest of justice.
3
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 4 of 13
TITLE 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) FACTORS THAT WARRANT CONSIDERATION
Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1) provides that the court in determining the particular sentence
to be imposed, shall consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant.”
With regard to the history and characteristics of Mr. Ramyard, the Presentence
Investigation Report more than adequately sets out his family history and personal information.
Departure or Variance Based Upon Zachary Kameron Ramyard’s
Serious Mental and Emotional Condition
U.S.S.G. §5H1.3, entitled “Mental and Emotional Conditions,” provides, “Mental and
emotional conditions may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted, if such
conditions, individually or in combination with other offender characteristics, are present to an
unusual degree and distinguish the case from the typical cases covered by the guidelines.”
On March 2, 2025, Michael J. DiTomasso, Ph.D. conducted a psychological evaluation
upon Zachary Kameron Ramyard at FDC Miami. (Dr. DiTomasso’s full report is being filed under
seal for this Court’s review.)
During that evaluation, Dr. DiTomasso conducted the following: the Clinical Interview;
Telephone interview with client’s mother and father; Beta-4 IQ Test; Symptom Checklist-90-R;
Projective Sentence Completion Test, and the Wide Range Achievement Test, 5th Ed.
Additionally, the doctor did a document review of the Indictment and the Presentence Investigation
Report.
Dr. DiTomasso summarizes his findings as follows:
Zachary is a deeply troubled individual. He suffers from severe and chronic depression
arising from a lifetime of rejection, derogation, isolation, and humiliation. At the emotional level,
4
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 5 of 13
Zachary is abjectly miserable, deeply frightened, and realistically worried about what his future
will hold.
Zachary has learned to deal with the rejection, oppression, isolation, and raw aching
sadness of his life through the use of intense levels of the psychological defense mechanism of
repression. He shuts his eyes and his mind tightly against allowing the thoughts, feelings, and
experiences that have tortured him for most of his life, to breach the surface of his conscious
awareness. The emotional pain in his life led him to seek solace in substance abuse, which then
became a disorder in its own right, and which then served to exacerbate the emotional distress and
bad decision making that got him into trouble. His chronic reliance on the excessive use of
repression, and upon the brain-numbing effects of narcotics, are factors that drove this young man,
who loves his family, who loves his daughter, and who has no wish to do harm to anyone; to go
down the rabbit hole of patently self-destructive decisions that led to his present legal situation.
The doctor comments that it is not an excuse, but it is an explanation. After a lifetime of
drowning in rejection and humiliation, Zachary stumbled onto an extraordinarily dysfunctional
manner of trying to find some acceptance among his peers. It did not have to happen. If chance
had allowed him to fall in with kinder, more compassionate peers, if his parents had figured out
how bad his experiences were earlier on and done something about it, if he had found a way to feel
that he belonged, that people liked him for who he was, he would not have chosen such a
pathological path to finding his place in the community.
Dr. DiTomasso believes that it does not have to be this way in the future, and if justice can
be tempered with mercy, and in view of some of the factors brought forth in his report, there could
still be a light at the end of Zachary’s tunnel.
5
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 6 of 13
It is the doctor’s recommendation that as Zachary serves his sentence, he is given the
opportunity to have psychiatric services and individual psychotherapy (which could address his
substance abuse issues as well). Equally important is that some kind of vocational training be
made available to Zachary, so that when he eventually gets out of prison, there will be a place in
the world for him where he fits in.
The doctor opines that with healing for his mental health issues, with abstinence from drugs
(which has already begun to benefit him) and with a marketable skill under his belt, Zachary could
finally find the place for himself in the world that had eluded him in the past.
Therefore, Zachary respectfully requests this Court to take into consideration his mental
and emotional difficulties while fashioning the appropriate sentence in this case.
Departure or Variance Based Upon Age (U.S.S.G. §5H1.1)
It is important to note that in August of 2020, when the criminal conduct commenced,
Zachary Ramyard had just turned nineteen (19) years of age, and when the criminal conduct
concluded in August of 2022, he was merely twenty-one (21) years of age. Certainly, his youth,
immaturity, naive trust in others, and entire lack of life experiences, surely contributed to his
foolish decision to become involved in this wholly unacceptable criminal behavior.
The United States Sentencing Commission has stated in-part in policy statement §5H1.1,
that “Age (including youth) may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted, if
considerations based on age, individually or in combination with other offender characteristics,
are present to an unusual degree and distinguish the case from the typical cases covered by the
guidelines.”
The Southern District of Florida has found that a defendant’s youth was relevant in
determining whether a downward variance was warranted. In United States v. Nicolas Mendoza
6
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 7 of 13
Zapata, Case No. 15-CR-20193-MORENO (SDFL 2015), the Court stated that “young people do
stupid things,” and granted a downward variance of 25% to a twenty-two (22) year old drug courier
in-part as a result of the defendant’s young age. The court stated, “When you’re 21, 22-years old,
you really don’t know enough and you do stupid things.”
It is respectfully submitted that a downward departure or variance is warranted based on
Zachery Ramyard’s youth and immaturity during the commission of the offense.
THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT SENTENCING
On December 12, 2023, Mr. Ramyard received a ninety-seven (97) month sentence of
imprisonment in the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) in the case entitled United
States v. Zachary Ramyard, bearing Case No. 6:23-CR-00089-RBD-DCI-1. [D.E. 75]. That
sentence was imposed upon Mr. Ramyard’s plea of guilty to the charge of Postal Robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2114(a) and 2, pursuant to a Plea Agreement. [D.E. 55]
● The offense conduct upon which that guilty plea was based was in-part as follows
[D.E. 70]:
On March 7, 2022, the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) was
notified at approximately 1:20 p.m. that a United States Postal Service (USPS) mail
carrier (the victim) had just been robbed at an apartment complex located on
Walden Circle, Orlando, Florida (apartment complex 1). The victim was on duty
in his USPS issued uniform, delivering mail to the residents of apartment complex
1. The victim suffered a concussion, a scalp hematoma, and had to be intubated as
a result of the injuries he sustained during the robbery. This robbery is hereinafter
referred to as the “mail carrier robbery.” (Mr. Ramyard was not one of the robbers.)
On March 25, 2022, mail was stolen from four communities in Orlando, Florida
(collectively, the “target communities”). Each of the target communities is located
less than two miles from apartment complex 1, where the mail carrier robbery
occurred. The arrow key stolen during the mail carrier robbery is capable of
opening the mailboxes in the target communities.
The investigation of the mail carrier robbery resulted in the identification of Jesus
Rafael Rojas (Rojas) and Camilo Ignacio Vivas Sanchez (Sanchez) as the two
7
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 8 of 13
robbers. Information obtained from sources revealed that Rojas was involved with
stolen checks, and he offered people money to use their bank accounts to deposit
the stolen checks. Sources further informed that Rojas worked with an individual
known as “Benzo,” who was involved in altering stolen checks. A review of J.B.’s
Instagram account revealed numerous pictures and videos suggesting that J.B. was
likely involved in fraud. Specifically, images showed J.B. with substantial amounts
of cash and jewelry. Other images showed numerous debit cards and identification
cards. Images also showed that J.B. tried to recruit individuals for the use of their
bank accounts. Law enforcement took that message to mean that J.B. was trying to
recruit individuals who wanted to make a significant amount of fast cash for the use
of their bank account.
Through the investigation it was determined that the cell phone number associated
with J.B.’s Instagram account was in communication with Zachary Ramyard’s
(Ramyard) cell phone number. Law enforcement reviewed text messages between
J.B. and Ramyard that occurred before the mail carrier robbery. Amongst those
messages were conversations regarding personal identifying information, including
information for bank accounts that received altered check deposits.1
Post-arrest, Rojas2 informed that he and Sanchez were recruited by J.B. to rob the
mail carrier and steal a USPS arrow key. Rojas added that after the mail carrier
robbery he and Sanchez met J.B. and exchanged the arrow key for $1,000 to each
of them. Rojas added that he learned J.B. gave the arrow key to Ramyard later that
same day. Based on the above, Ramyard organized the mail carrier robbery of the
arrow key on March 7, 2022, as evidenced by messages Ramyard sent to J.B. telling
him to rob a mail carrier and paying him $5,000. In turn, J.B. recruited Rojas and
Sanchez, who committed the mail carrier robbery and were each paid by J.B. The
object of the offense was to obtain the arrow key and later use the key to steal mail
from various mailbox locations. Other co-conspirators then altered and deposited
stolen checks into various bank accounts.
● According to the Factual Proffer the offense conduct upon which Mr. Ramyard’s
guilty plea is based in this case is as follows [D.E. 15]:
From in or around August 2020 through in or around August 2022, the defendant
agreed with co-conspirators to submit fraudulent Unemployment Insurance (UI)
claims to the State of California, the Employment Development Department
(EDD), on behalf of dozens of individuals without their authorization. To do so, the
defendant purchased their personal identifiable information ("PII") online and used
1
J.B. sent Ramyard personal identifying information for the following individuals: E.G. on February 16,
2022; I.E. on February 12, 2022; and S.G. on February 22, 2022. Bank records showed that accounts
belonging to each of these three individuals received deposits of altered checks in late February 2022.
2
Rojas informed knowing Ramyard by the alias of “Z”. In text conversations between Rojas and J.B.,
Ramyard is also referenced by the alias of “Zee” by J.B.
8
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 9 of 13
burner phones to disguise his identity when communicating with co-conspirators
and submitting the electronic applications. The defendant created new contact
email addresses to submit and track fraudulent applications, including
drjohn3900@yahoo.com. In order to verify the fraudulent applications with ID.me,
the defendant and co-conspirators created counterfeit driver's licenses with victims'
PII and the faces of Co-Conspirator 1 and other co-conspirators. In turn, the
defendant instructed Co-Conspirator 1, a Miami-Dade County resident, to take
selfie photographs of himself to match the counterfeit driver's licenses. The
fraudulent UI claims triggered interstate wires to EDD and caused Bank of America
to mail debit cards to Florida and California addresses controlled by the defendant
and co-conspirators. As a result of 68 of the defendant's fraudulent applications in
different victims' names, the California EDD deposited $1,288,500 in UI claims
onto fraudulent debit cards controlled by the defendant and co-conspirators. The
defendant used rental cars to travel throughout Florida to different ATMs to
withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars in UI funds from various debit cards.
Argument for a Concurrent Sentence
First, it should be noted that the offense conduct in the case-at-bar occurred “From in or
around August 2020 through in or around August 2022,” which encompasses the same time span
as that in Mr. Ramyard’s prior conviction and sentence in the Middle District of Florida.
Second, it is clear that the conduct in this case was the manner in which the fruits of the
conspirator’s criminal conduct in the Middle District case were ultimately realized. In other words,
the theft of mail with its enclosed personal information by itself was of no value. It was only after
that personal information was utilized to obtain money through mail fraud or otherwise, that there
was value in the theft of the mail.
Third, the fraudulent conduct in this case was part-and-parcel of the overall scheme to
benefit from the theft of the mail facilitated by the theft of the arrow key from the mailman which
was part of the offense conduct in the Middle District.
U.S.S.G. §5G1.3 provides in-part:
(b) If subsection (a) does not apply, and a term of imprisonment resulted from
another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under
the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct),
9
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 10 of 13
the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed as follows: (Emphasis
supplied.)
(1) the court shall adjust the sentence for any period of imprisonment already served
on the undischarged term of imprisonment if the court determines that such period
of imprisonment will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of
Prisons; and
(2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the
remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment. (Emphasis supplied.)
(d) (Policy Statement) In any other case involving an undischarged term of
imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run
concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged
term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant
offense.(Emphasis supplied.)
The offense conduct in the case-at-bar had essentially been subsumed by the offense
conduct in the Middle District case and may be considered as relevant conduct in that Middle
District case.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to run the sentence to be imposed in this case
concurrently with the ninety-seven (97) month sentence of imprisonment previously imposed in
the Middle District of Florida.
The Need for Individualized Sentencing
The United States Supreme Court in Pepper v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 1229 (2011),
emphasized the need for individualized sentencing based not only on the crime, but on the
particular defendant as well. They said that Federal sentencing demands that every convicted
person be treated as an individual and “every case as a unique study in the human failings that
sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and punishment to ensue.” Citing: Gall v.
United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 589 (2007).
10
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 11 of 13
As this Honorable Court is well-aware, the Court has full authority to consider any
evidence in deciding whether the Guidelines “properly reflect §3553(a) considerations.” Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007).
The Supreme Court has expressly directed sentencing courts that they may not presume
that the guidelines range is reasonable. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). Rather,
sentencing courts are directed to make an “individualized assessment” of the sentence warranted
by §3553(a) “based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. at 597 (2007). The
result is that “[a] sentencing judge has very wide latitude to decide the proper degree of punishment
for an individual offender and a particular crime.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 188 (2d
Cir. 2008). Ultimately, courts are required to impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater
than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote general and specific deterrence,
rehabilitate the defendant, and protect the public. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that there is a well-founded basis upon which this Court may
grant Mr. Ramyard’s request for a concurrent sentence. That sentence will reflect the seriousness
of the offense; promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.
Additionally, such a sentence would afford a more than adequate deterrence to any future
criminal conduct of Mr. Ramyard and protect the public as well. In sum and substance, such a
sentence would be in accord with the principles set forth in Title 18 U.S.C. §3553.
In fashioning the appropriate sentence, the Court “may not presume that the Guidelines
range is reasonable,” but rather “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007); see also Nelson v. United States, 555
U.S. 350, 352 (2009) (“The Guidelines are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts; they are
11
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 12 of 13
also not to be presumed reasonable.”) Here, an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors
supports a concurrent sentence.
Lastly, it is respectfully submitted that Zachary Kameron Ramyard, who is presently
twenty-three (23) years of age, deserves another chance to be a productive law-abiding member
of society at the earliest time possible. Again, the Defendant has extraordinary remorse for his
criminal conduct and has expressed a sincere desire to return to a life of only lawful hard work
and respectability. The concurrent sentence requested in this instance would be sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the sentencing goals set forth in Title 18 U.S.C.A.
§3553(2)(A-D).
WHEREFORE, Defendant, ZACHARY KAMERON RAMYARD, respectfully prays
that this Honorable Court sentence him to a sentence that will run concurrently with the ninety-
seven (97) month sentence of imprisonment previously imposed in the Middle District of Florida.
Respectfully submitted,
ANA M. DAVIDE, Esq.
(Florida Bar No. 875996)
ANA M. DAVIDE, P.A.
420 South Dixie Highway, Suite 4B
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Telephone: (305) 854-6100
Fax: (305) 854-6197
E-mail: ana@anadavidelaw.com
(Counsel for Defendant,
Zachary Kameron Ramyard.)
/s/ Ana M. Davide _____
ANA M. DAVIDE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of March, 2025, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
12
Case 1:24-cr-20382-DPG Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2025 Page 13 of 13
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties either via transmission
of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those
counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
ANA M. DAVIDE, Esq.
(Florida Bar No. 875996)
ANA M. DAVIDE, P.A.
420 South Dixie Highway, Suite 4B
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Telephone: (305) 854-6100
Fax: (305) 854-6197
E-mail: ana@anadavidelaw.com
(Counsel for Defendant,
Zachary Kameron Ramyard.)
/s/ Ana M. Davide _____
ANA M. DAVIDE
13
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.674071.31.0.pdf
- Size
- 86,009 bytes
- SHA-256
- 14816ca353badd4954e43d4e46d4ef6892191f63a343210ac71a80a0dbf4d15e
- Original
- www.courtlistener.com