Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0895-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artemio RAMOS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-14514
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 30, 2011.
    Wifredo A. Ferrer, Allyson Fritz, George M. Karavetsos, Jonathan E. Lopez, Suzan H. Ponzoli, Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Artemio Ramos, Jr., Anthony, NM, pro se.
    
      Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Artemio Ramos, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of two belated post-conviction motions, in which he challenged the adequacy of the government’s notice to enhance his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. However, the district court has rejected Ramos’s argument in at least one previous ruling that he did not appeal. As a result, Ramos’s argument is foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir.1997).

To the extent Ramos’s motions should have been construed as motions to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we construe the notice of appeal here as an application for a certifícate of appealability (“COA”), see Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.2003), and we find that Ramos has not met the applicable standard for obtaining a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We further observe that Ramos has previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied with prejudice, and he has not obtained the requisite permission from this Court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ■ See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.