IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RICARDO MANUEL RAMOS JUAREZ, 

 Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Manuel Ramos Juarez filed a late notice of appeal along with a 

motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal. The district court denied his 

motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal. He appeals that denial. We affirm 

and dismiss his original appeal as untimely. 

I.

Ramos Juarez, a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after 

conviction of a felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court 

sentenced him on June 20, 2019. After imposing the sentence, the district court

informed Ramos Juarez of his right to appeal:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20535 Document: 00515443952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2020
No. 19-20535

2

Now, Mr. Ramos, you have a right to appeal this matter. If you 

cannot afford a lawyer to represent you on appeal and can satisfy 

the Court that you meet the criteria for the appointment of 

counsel, I will appoint a lawyer for you. I’m sure that Mr. Austin 

[the Assistant Federal Public Defender representing Ramos 

Juarez] will advise you of your appeal rights, and a copy -- and I 

will also provide to you this written notice of your appeal rights 

and a copy of this will be retained in the court file. You may take 

the other copy with you.

The court then provided Ramos Juarez with a written “NOTICE TO 

DEFENDANT” that outlined his right to appeal. In relevant part, it stated: 

You have a right to appeal your conviction and the sentence 

imposed under certain circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

A notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 

fourteen (14) days after the entry of the judgment of conviction or 

other order from which you want to appeal. 

If you want, the district clerk will prepare and file the notice of 

appeal for you, but you must make the request during the fourteen 

(14) day period referred to above.

The district court entered Ramos Juarez’s judgment on June 26, 2019.

Ramos Juarez filed his notice of appeal from his judgment of conviction and 

sentence on July 25, 2019—more than fourteen days after the entry of the 

judgment of conviction. He also filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of 

appeal. The district court denied Ramos Juarez’s motion, finding that, in light 

of the court’s oral and written notice given to him immediately upon the 

pronouncement of his sentence, any confusion he had regarding his right to 

appeal did not amount to good cause or excusable neglect to justify an 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Ramos Juarez now appeals that 

denial and the Government moves to dismiss his original appeal as untimely. 

 Case: 19-20535 Document: 00515443952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2020
No. 19-20535

3

II.

A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within fourteen days 

of the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(1)(A). It is undisputed that Ramos Juarez failed to meet this deadline. 

Within thirty days after the expiration of the fourteen-day period, a defendant 

may file a motion for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal 

based upon excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). It is this 

motion that is the subject of this appeal. 

We review the district court’s denial of the motion to file a late notice of 

appeal for abuse of discretion. United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 43 (5th Cir. 

1995). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its ruling “on an 

erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” 

Dawson v. United States, 68 F.3d 886, 895–96 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

III.

Ramos Juarez contends that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motion for leave because he demonstrated either excusable neglect 

or good cause for untimely filing his notice of appeal. We disagree.

In his two-sentence motion before the district court, Ramos Juarez states 

only that he “was confused about his right to appeal his sentence rather than 

appeal his conviction or both” and that “good cause has been shown due to the 

confusion of Mr. Ramos-Juarez’s rights.” The district court, though, 

immediately after imposing Ramos Juarez’s sentence, orally advised him of his 

right to appeal and of his right to counsel on appeal; expressed confidence that 

his present counsel, an Assistant Federal Public Defender, would advise him 

of his appeal rights; and signed and gave to Ramos Juarez a written notice of 

his appeal rights. 

 Case: 19-20535 Document: 00515443952 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2020
No. 19-20535

4

We thus have no trouble concluding that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion here, and none of the arguments advanced by Ramos Juarez in 

his brief persuades us otherwise. See Clark, 51 F.3d at 44 (“[N]oticing an 

appeal here required nothing unusual or difficult . . . and whatever confusion 

[the defendant] may have suffered because of these rules, we clearly cannot 

say that his confusion mandates a finding of excusable neglect as a matter of 

law.”); see also Halicki v. La. Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 

1998) (explaining in the civil context that where “the rule at issue is 

unambiguous, a district court’s determination that the neglect was inexcusable 

is virtually unassailable”). 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of 

Ramos Juarez’s motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and DISMISS 

the appeal of his conviction and sentence as untimely. 

 Case: 19-20535 Document: 00515443952 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/08/2020