United States v. Artemio Ramos, Jr. , 420 F. App'x 895 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14514 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 30, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:03-cr-20980-PCH-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARTEMIO RAMOS, JR.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 30, 2011)
Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Artemio Ramos, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of two belated post-conviction motions, in which he
challenged the adequacy of the government’s notice to enhance his sentence
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. However, the district court has rejected Ramos’s
argument in at least one previous ruling that he did not appeal. As a result,
Ramos’s argument is foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine. See United States
v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997).
To the extent Ramos’s motions should have been construed as motions to
vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we construe the notice of appeal here as an
application for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), see Pagan v. United States,
353 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2003), and we find that Ramos has not met the
applicable standard for obtaining a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We further observe that Ramos has
previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied with prejudice, and he has not
obtained the requisite permission from this Court to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2