USA v. Bermea-Cepeda, No. 08-40003 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-40003 Summary Calendar February 18, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN BERMEA-CEPEDA Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:98-CR-571-ALL Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Bermea-Cepeda, federal prisoner #67637-079, appeals the district court s dismissal of his action that he characterized as a motion to reconsider a denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. In 1999, a jury found Bermea-Cepeda guilty of possession with the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, illegal reentry, being a felon in possession of a firearm, * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. No. 08-40003 being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and attempting to kill a border patrol agent. In 2002, the district court sentenced Bermea-Cepeda, following an appeal and remand, to a total of 206 months of imprisonment. On appeal to this court, Bermea-Cepeda argues that the district court erred in denying his F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(b) motion, filed in October 2007. BermeaCepeda asserts that the judgment of conviction was void under F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(b) because he was denied a speedy trial in violation of his constitutional rights. As criminal proceedings in the United States district courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, F ED. R. C RIM. P. 1, and not the Rules of Civil Procedure, Bermea-Cepeda s motion under F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(b) was an unauthorized action which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). BermeaCepeda has thus appealed from the dismissal of a meaningless, unauthorized action. See id. We affirm on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. AFFIRMED. 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.
