United States v. Ramos ( 2021 )

Case: 20-40057 Document: 00515744834 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 15, 2021
No. 20-40057
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Richard Lee Ramos,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-848-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Richard Lee Ramos pled guilty, pursuant to a written agreement, to
conspiracy to transport aliens. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison,
the statutory maximum and effective guidelines range. On appeal, Ramos
argues first, that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40057 Document: 00515744834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
No. 20-40057
invalid, and second, that the district court erred when it increased his
sentence for his supervisory role and denied him a reduction for accepting
responsibility.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us fairly to evaluate
Ramos’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Therefore, we decline to
consider them without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v.
Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Further, on the record before us,
Ramos has not shown that his waiver of his right to appeal his sentence is
invalid, and his suggestion that his right to appeal his sentence was reinstated
by the district court’s comments at sentencing is unavailing. See United
States v. Serrano-Lara, 698 F.3d 841, 843-45 (5th Cir. 2012); Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1); see also United States v. De Leon, 915 F.3d 386, 390 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2731 (2019); United States v. Miles, 10 F.3d 1135,
1140 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2