govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_19-cr-00217-3

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
v. 
 
Ramont Lamont Adams, 
 
Defendant. 
 
_________________________________/ 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:19-cr-217-MLB 
 
 
 
  
ORDER 
In June 2019, a grand jury indicted Defendant Ramont Adams (and 
codefendants) for conspiring to commit  robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2111(a), robbery in violation of  18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3) and 2111, and 
aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3) and 2241(a)(1).  
(Dkt. 1.)  The charges stemmed from the conspirator’s robbery and sexual 
assault of a fellow inma te while incarcerated at  a federal prison in 
Atlanta.  (Id.)  A magistrate judge issued an arrest warrant the same day.  
(Dkt. 3.)  The United States later obtained a superseding indictment.  
(Dkt. 21.)  On December 8, 2020, De fendant Adams pleaded guilty to 
robbery and aggravated sexual abu se.  (Dkts. 72, 72-1.)  The Court 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 1 of 8
 
2 
 
sentenced him to imprisonment for 210 months—the bottom of the 
guideline range.  (Dkts. 82, 118.)  
Defendant Adams appealed but voluntarily dismissed the appeal.  
(Dkts. 89, 121.)  In 2022, he filed several pro se motions under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2255, asserting his innocence and claiming his attorney was 
constitutionally ineffective for failing to pursue that claim and for failing 
to seek dismissal for two violations of his speedy trial rights.  (Dkts. 122, 
125, 128, 129.)  A Magistrate Judge recommended denial, and the Court 
adopted that recommendation.  (D kts. 133, 135.)  Defendant Adams 
appealed.  (Dkt. 146.)  The Eleventh Circuit de termined the Court had 
not considered one of Defendant Adam’s  speedy trial claims, specifically 
that the indictment was untimely be cause the United States did not 
obtain the indictment with in thirty days of the o ffense.  (Dkt. 161.)  So 
the Court of Appeals remanded for consideration of that claim.  (Id.)     
The Magistrate Judge again recomm ends denial.  (Dkt. 171.)  In a 
written recommendation, he explai ns the Speedy Trial Act requires 
indictment within thirty days of arrest—not an offense—and the United 
States met that requirement.  (Id. at 5.)  He likewise concludes the Sixth 
Amendment imposes no 30-day indi ctment requirement since the 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 2 of 8
 
3 
 
constitutional speedy tr ial right arises upon in dictment, accusation, or 
arrest.  ( Id. at 6-7 ( citing United States v. Marion , 404 U.S. 307, 315 
(1971) (rejecting claim constitutional speedy trial rights were violated by 
pre-indictment delay because “the Sixth Amendment speedy trial 
provision has no application until th e putative defendant in some way 
becomes an ‘accused,’ an event that occurred in this case only when [they] 
were indicted . . .”) and Stoner v. Graddick , 751 F.2d 1535, 1541 (11th 
Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[T]he Speedy Trial Clause is inapplicable where, 
as here, the delay concerns a peri od of time prior to indictment, 
information, or arrest.”).)  Next, the Magistrate Judge concludes there 
could be no Fifth Amendment violatio n from pre-indictment delay since 
the United States obtained the indi ctment well within the statute of 
limitations and Defendant Adams a lleges neither prejudice from pre-
indictment delay nor any tactical delay by the United States.  ( Id. at 8-
9.)  Since Defendant Adams had not demonstrated any violation of his 
speedy trial rights, the Magistrate Judge says he also has not adequately 
alleged ineffective assistance by his lawyer for failing to pursue those 
arguments.  Defendant filed no objections.   
While that issue was pending, Defendant filed a motion for sentence 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 3 of 8
 
4 
 
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  (Dkt.  163.)  The United States 
opposes.  (Dkt. 174.)   
I. Motion to Vacate Conviction 
Federal law requires district courts to “make a de novo 
determination of those portions of [an R&R] to which objection is made.”  
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).  Any such object ion “must specifically identify the 
portions of the [R&R] to which object ion is made and the specific basis 
for objection.”  McCullars v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 825 F. App’x 685, 
694 (11th Cir. 2020) 1; see United States v. Schultz , 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 
(11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] party that wish es to preserve its objection must 
clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the 
party disagrees with.”).  “Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need 
not be considered by the district court.”  Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 
1548 (11th Cir. 1988).  When no objectio ns are filed, de novo review is 
unnecessary.  Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not 
 
1 The Court recognizes McCullars is unpublished and not binding.  The 
Court cites it and other unpublished ca ses as instructive, nonetheless.  
See Searcy v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 902 F.3d 1342, 1355 n.5 (11th 
Cir. 2018) (“Unpublished cases do no t constitute binding authority and 
may be relied on only to the extent they are persuasive.”). 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 4 of 8
 
5 
 
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a 
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other 
standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).   
Even assuming review is necessary here, the Court sees no error in 
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that it dismiss Defendant 
Adams’s motion to vacate with prej udice.  As the Magistrate Judge 
accurately noted, Defendant Adam’s claim the United States failed to 
obtain an indictment within 30 days of the crime cannot succeed under 
the Speedy Trial Act, th e Sixth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment.  
None of those authorities require su ch a quick indictment.  Defendant’s 
speedy trial claim is meritless, and “counsel is not deficient for failing to 
raise a meritless argument.”  Santiago v. United States , 2024 WL 
5356554 *2 (11
th Cir. July 31, 2024).  The Court thus ADOPTS the 
Magistrate Judge’s report an d recommendation (Dkt. 171) and 
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Defendant Adams’s motion to vacate 
(Dkt. 122).  Since no reasonable jurist could find this conclusion wrong or 
debatable, the Court also adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 
that it DENY a certificate of appealability. 
         
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 5 of 8
 
6 
 
II. Motion for Sentence Reduction 
A court may reduce a defendant’s sentence when a retroactively 
applicable amendment to the Sentenci ng Guidelines provides a lower 
recommended sentence and the reduct ion complies with the sentencing 
factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and applicable policy statements.  See 18 
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).  Defendant Adams seeks a sentence reduction under 
Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which (among other 
things) reduced the so-called status points certain defendants receive 
under section 4A1.1(e).  The United States agrees Defendant Adams is 
eligible for this reduction since he would now receive one fewer criminal 
history point under section 4A1.1(e) than he received at sentencing, that 
change would reduce his criminal history by one category, and that would 
result in a recommended sentence of  188 to 235 months rather than the 
initially recommended sentence of 210 to 262 months.  (Dkt. 174 at 4-5.)  
The United States, however, argues the 3553 factors weigh against 
a sentence reduction.  The Court agr ees.  To start, Defendant makes no 
argument as to why those factors wa rrant a reduced sentence.  Having 
reviewed the Presentence Report an d transcript of the sentencing 
hearing, the Court agrees  with the sentencing ju dge’s conclusion that 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 6 of 8
 
7 
 
Defendant’s conduct was “heinous” an d “the most life changing-event of 
a victim’s life.”  (Dkt. 118 at 12, 18.)   That’s because Defendant and his 
codefendants attacked a fellow inma te who was in a wheelchair to rob 
him of stamps, Defendant choked him until unconscious, and (even after 
the victim told the assailants where to find the stamps) the group raped 
him with a sharp long object, leading to bleeding from his anus.  (Dkt. 92 
¶¶ 11-17.)  The sentencing court imposed the sentence it did—rather 
than a longer sentence—in reco gnition of Defendant’s lengthy 
incarceration.  Regardless of any chan ge in the Sentencing Guidelines, 
the sentence imposed remains suffici ent but not greater than necessary 
given the seriousness of the offens e (viciously attacking a disabled 
inmate), Defendant’s history and circumstances (including that 
Defendant was already serving a sent ence for a sex offense (Dkt. 92 
¶ 55)), the need to deter other inmates from similar conduct, the need to 
protect the public from a person cap able of committing such an offense, 
and the fact the sentence imposed re mains within the newly-calculated 
Guideline recommendation. 
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 7 of 8
 
8 
 
sentence reduction (Dkt. 163.)2 
III. Conclusion 
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and 
recommendation (Dkt. 171), DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE  
Defendant Adams’s motion to vacate (Dkt. 122), DENIES Defendant a 
certificate of appealability, and DENIES his motion for sentence 
reduction (Dkt. 163).  The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion 
for extension of time (Dkt. 176).  
SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2026. 
 
   
 
 
2 In November 2025, Defendant also filed a motion for additional time to 
reply to the United States’s response to his motion for sentence reduction.  
(Dkt. 176.)  Defendant has had more than enough time to reply but has 
not done so.  The Court thus DENIES that motion as moot.   
1 (1 1 (1 
MICH" KEL  L.  BROWN 
Case 1:19-cr-00217-TCB-JSA     Document 178     Filed 05/01/26     Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight