Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Diego OSPINA, also known as Tato, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-24
Citations: 463 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 11-20413
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Diego OSPINA, also known as Tato, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Diego OSPINA, also known as Tato, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-20413
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Juan Diego Ospina, Loretto, PA, pro se.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Diego Ospina appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to correct his name. Ospina was convicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. After his conviction became final, Ospina sought to change the case caption to read "Diego Antonio Toro." He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because he had valid documents showing that he was processed under an alias. Ospina also contends that, under the Second Chance Act of 2007, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is required to assist him in obtaining legal forms of identification prior to his release.
Ospina provides no legal basis for filing his motion. He identifies no legal authority under which the district court may have considered a postjudgment motion to correct his name. Ospina's appeal is "patently frivolous." United States v. Williams, 990 F.2d 626 (5th Cir.1993) (unpublished); see 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3 (unpublished opinion before 1996 is precedential).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.