USA v. Ramos, No. 20-40057 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-40057 Document: 00515744834 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 15, 2021 No. 20-40057 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Richard Lee Ramos, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19-CR-848-1 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Richard Lee Ramos pled guilty, pursuant to a written agreement, to conspiracy to transport aliens. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison, the statutory maximum and effective guidelines range. On appeal, Ramos argues first, that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-40057 Document: 00515744834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2021 No. 20-40057 invalid, and second, that the district court erred when it increased his sentence for his supervisory role and denied him a reduction for accepting responsibility. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us fairly to evaluate Ramos’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Therefore, we decline to consider them without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Further, on the record before us, Ramos has not shown that his waiver of his right to appeal his sentence is invalid, and his suggestion that his right to appeal his sentence was reinstated by the district court’s comments at sentencing is unavailing. See United States v. Serrano-Lara, 698 F.3d 841, 843-45 (5th Cir. 2012); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1); see also United States v. De Leon, 915 F.3d 386, 390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2731 (2019); United States v. Miles, 10 F.3d 1135, 1140 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.
