Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10812/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10812-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ismael Rico
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10812

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISMAEL RICO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-152-4

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Rico, federal prisoner # 49569-177, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion for relief from the 

2016 judgment convicting him of, and sentencing him for, conspiracy to possess 

with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance 

containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. Among the grounds on 

which the district court denied Rico’s motion was that the Federal Rules of 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10812 Document: 00515338842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2020
No. 19-10812

2

Civil Procedure do not apply in criminal proceedings. On appeal, Rico

contends that his judgment is void because it imposed “punishment for 

criminal conduct” (i.e., Guidelines enhancements) that was not part of the 

“indictment charges” to which Rico pled guilty and because the sentencing 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

Rule 60 does not apply in criminal proceedings. See United States v. 

O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999); FED. R. CIV. P. 1. Thus, the district 

court did not err in denying Rico’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion on this basis. Moreover, 

because Rico’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion sought to challenge his conviction and 

sentence on grounds that he could have raised in his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion, the motion is properly construed as an unauthorized successive 

Section 2255 motion, which the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); § 2255(h); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–

32 (2005); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). 

We can uphold “the district court’s judgment on any grounds supported 

by the record.” Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). We 

therefore AFFIRM. Rico’s motion for release under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9(a) is DENIED. 

Case: 19-10812 Document: 00515338842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2020