DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
TOMMY RAMIREZ, 
Defendant. 
 
) 
)            
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0012 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
 
ORDER 
 
BEFORE THE COURT is the motion of Tommy Ramirez (“Ramirez”) to conduct his 
sentencing in this matter by video conferencing. (ECF No. 192.)  
 
On March 7, 2019, a grand jury returned a three-count indictment, charging Ramirez 
with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count I); attempted 
possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 
(Count II); and federal use of communication facility to facilitate a felony in violation of 21 
U.S.C. § 834(b). On July 7, 2021, Ramirez pleaded guilty as to Count I of the indictment before 
the magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation that day. (ECF No. 185.) On 
July 22, 2021, the undersigned adopted that Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 186.) 
Most recently, a sentencing hearing was scheduled for January 27, 2022.1 On January 19, 
2022, Ramirez filed an unopposed motion to conduct his sentencing by video 
teleconferencing technology. (ECF No. 192.) 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires that a "defendant must be present at 
. . . sentencing." Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a)(3). Nevertheless, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
Congress recently provided certain circumstances under which a sentencing may be 
conducted by video teleconference. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus 
 
1 A sentencing hearing was initially scheduled for November 23, 2021. Ramirez filed an unopposed Motion to 
Continue Sentencing Hearing on November 12, 2021. (ECF No. 189.) The Court granted the motion on 
November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 191.) 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 193   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 1 of 4
United States v. Ramirez 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0012 
Order 
Page 2 of 4 
 
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). The Act was signed into law by the 
President of the United States that same day. Among its many provisions, the CARES Act 
authorizes district courts to use video teleconferencing to hold felony sentencings under 
appropriate circumstances and with the consent of the defendant after consultation with 
counsel. See CARES Act, § 15002(b)(2), H.R. 748, 248-49; id. § 15002 (b)(4) (“Video 
teleconferencing . . . authorized under paragraph . . . (2) may only take place with the consent 
of the defendant . . . after consultation with counsel.”). Specifically, the following three 
conditions must be met: (1) the Judicial Conference of the United States must “find[] that 
emergency conditions due to the national emergency declared by the President . . . with 
respect to the [COVID-19] will materially affect the functioning of [] the Federal courts 
generally;” (2) the chief judge of a district court covered by that finding must “specifically 
find[] . . . that . . . felony sentencings under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
cannot be conducted in person without seriously jeopardizing public health and safety;” and 
(3) “the district judge in a particular case finds for specific reasons that the plea or sentencing 
in that case cannot be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of justice.” See 
id. § 15002(b)(2), 
 
On March 29, 2020, the Judicial Conference of the United States found, pursuant to 
the CARES Act, that emergency conditions due to the national emergency declared by the 
President with respect to COVID-19 have materially affected and will materially affect the 
function of the federal courts generally. 
 
On April 9, 2020, the Chief Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands entered a 
third general order responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. In that order, the Chief Judge 
found that felony sentencings under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
cannot be conducted in person in this judicial district without seriously jeopardizing public 
health and safety. As such, the April 9, 2020 Order authorized the use of videoconferencing 
to conduct felony sentencing for a period of 90 days. That Order has been successively 
extended, most recently on December 30, 2021.   
 
The “court must impose sentence without unnecessary delay.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 
32(b)(1). Without an end, or even an abatement, in sight to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 193   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 2 of 4
United States v. Ramirez 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0012 
Order 
Page 3 of 4 
 
the indefinite delay of sentencing hearings “would only add to the enormous backlog of 
criminal and civil matters facing this Court, and every judge in this District, when normal 
operations resume.” E.g., United States v. Hernandez, 2020 WL 2850222, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 
1, 2020); United States v. Soe, 2020 WL 3483588, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2020).  
The continued delays to in-person proceedings, and their resultant backlog of cases, 
undermine the Court’s ability to efficiently manage its docket. This inefficiency consequently 
weighs heavily against the public’s interest in judicial economy. See In re Modafinil Antitrust 
Litigation, 837 F.3d 238, 268 (3d Cir. 2016) (“’Judicial economy’ means ‘[e]fficiency in the 
operation of the courts and the judicial system… .”) (Rendell, J., concurring in part). Thus, 
Rule 32(b)(1)’s requirement that a sentence be imposed without unnecessary delay 
intertwines considerations of judicial economy with the interest of justice, particularly in the 
abnormal context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cf. In re: Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 
390, 402 (3d Cir. 2017) (“public interests… derive from ‘the interest of justice.’… We regard 
these public interests to include judicial economy considerations.”) (internal citations 
omitted).  
Here, the interests of justice necessarily cannot be served by unduly delaying a 
defendant’s sentencing once he has been convicted. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 
50 n. 8 (1987) (“The interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of delay, rather than 
being hindered, would be best served by resolving the issue.”). Where a defendant has, as 
Ramirez has in this case, consented to sentencing by video teleconferencing through his 
attorney (see generally ECF No. 192), such an indefinite delay causes continued serious harm 
to the public’s interest in judicial economy, and by extension, the interests of justice. Cf. 
Howmedica, 867 F.3d at 402. 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Ramirez’s unopposed motion to appear for sentencing via 
videoconference (ECF No. 192) is GRANTED; it is further 
ORDERED that the sentencing hearing for this matter currently scheduled to 
commence promptly at 10:30 A.M. on January 27, 2022 before Chief Judge Robert A. Molloy 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 193   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 3 of 4
United States v. Ramirez 
Case No. 3:19-cr-0012 
Order 
Page 4 of 4 
 
shall be held via video teleconferencing, with log-in information to be provided to the parties 
at a later date; and it is further 
ORDERED that the public may access the audio of the video conference proceedings 
in this matter by calling 1-888-251-2909 and entering access code 5157509#. 
  
Date: January 20, 2022 
 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
 
 
 
  
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
Chief Judge 
 
 
 
 
Case: 3:19-cr-00012-RAM-RM   Document #: 193   Filed: 01/20/22   Page 4 of 4