USA v. Juan Ospina, No. 11-20413 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-20413 Document: 00511767297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-20413 Summary Calendar February 24, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN DIEGO OSPINA, also known as Tato, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-21-1 Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Diego Ospina appeals from the district court s denial of his motion to correct his name. Ospina was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. After his conviction became final, Ospina sought to change the case caption to read Diego Antonio Toro. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because he had valid documents showing that he was processed under an alias. Ospina also contends * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-20413 Document: 00511767297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2012 No. 11-20413 that, under the Second Chance Act of 2007, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is required to assist him in obtaining legal forms of identification prior to his release. Ospina provides no legal basis for filing his motion. He identifies no legal authority under which the district court may have considered a postjudgment motion to correct his name. Ospina s appeal is patently frivolous. United States v. Williams, 990 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1993) (unpublished); see 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3 (unpublished opinion before 1996 is precedential). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
