USA v. Miguel Ramos-Lozano, No. 18-40348 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-40348 Document: 00514731579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-40348 Summary Calendar FILED November 20, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MIGUEL ANGEL RAMOS-LOZANO, also known as Muneco, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1667-4 Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Miguel Angel Ramos-Lozano, federal prisoner # 00821-379, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for reduction of sentence after his conviction and 135-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c) motion because it failed to follow the two-step process as explained in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-40348 Document: 00514731579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2018 No. 18-40348 817, 827 (2010). The Government has filed a letter seeking the dismissal of the appeal on the basis that Ramos-Lozano failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The record supports the Government’s contention. Ramos-Lozano filed his notice of appeal after the expiration of the time for filing a timely appeal and beyond the time during which the district court could have granted him an extension upon a showing of either excusable neglect or good cause. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(4); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). While the untimely filing of a notice of appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional, see United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007), this court will enforce the mandatory time limit by dismissing the appeal where, as here, the Government raises the issue. See United States v. Hernandez-Gomez, 795 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as untimely. 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.
