United States v. Julio Ramos

Case: 20-20351 Document: 00515560899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 11, 2020
No. 20-20351
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Julio A. Ramos,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-457-4
Before Stewart, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Julio A. Ramos was convicted by jury verdict of conspiring to possess
with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine and in excess
of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana; and possession with intent to distribute in
excess of five kilograms of cocaine, and aiding and abetting. The district
court, in a judgment entered on April 11, 2002, sentenced Ramos to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20351 Document: 00515560899 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2020
No. 20-20351
concurrent terms of 405 months of imprisonment. Ramos appealed,
challenging the exclusion of expert testimony; however, we affirmed the
district court’s judgment. See United States v. Ramos, 71 F. App’x 334, 335-
36 (5th Cir. 2003).
In 2020, Ramos filed a second notice of appeal from the April 2002
criminal judgment. He now moves this court for the appointment of counsel.
We may dismiss an appeal when considering an interlocutory motion
if the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Ramos is not entitled to two appeals, and his second appeal from the same
convictions is “not properly before this Court.” United States v. Arlt, 567
F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978); accord United States v. Rodriguez, 821 F.3d
632, 633-34 (5th Cir. 2016). A defendant is entitled to the appointment of
counsel only for his first direct appeal. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S.
551, 555 (1987).
In view of the foregoing, Ramos’s motion for the appointment of
counsel is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
2