USA v. Brown, No. 21-10208 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10208 Document: 00515961004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 2, 2021 No. 21-10208 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ronnie Mikel Brown, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:14-CR-367-39 Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ronnie Brown pleaded guilty of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. He purports to have filed a second direct appeal seeking to challenge the district court’s drug quantity calculation at sentencing, and he moves for appointment of substitute counsel, or, in the alternative, leave to proceed pro se. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-10208 Document: 00515961004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2021 No. 21-10208 An indigent criminal defendant in a felony case must be provided counsel on direct appeal as of right. United States v. Palomo, 80 F.3d 138, 141 (5th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1)(A), (c). But Brown has already filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed on the government’s motion. See United States v. Brown, No. 16-11148 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017). A defendant “is not entitled to two appeals,” and a second appeal from the same conviction 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 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the second appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Brown’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel and his alternative motion for leave to proceed pro se are DENIED. 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.