Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Hugo Rodriguez Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-24
Citations: 475 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 10-50477
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Hugo Rodriguez Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 510–510

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Hugo Rodriguez Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50477.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 24, 2011.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hugo Ramirez-Rodriguez, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hugo Ramirez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to a 140-month prison term. Judgment was entered in October 2006. Ramirez-Rodriguez filed a timely notice of appeal, but that appeal was voluntarily dismissed by Ramirez-Rodriguez. The instant notice of appeal was filed on May 11, 2010, more than three years after the October 2006 final judgment was entered and well beyond the time for extending the appeal period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4). See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i), (b)(4). Ramirez-Rodriguez's appeal, which is far outside the time limit, is frivolous and is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; see United States v. Perez, 239 Fed.Appx. 928, 928 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750-51 (10th Cir.2008). His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. His motion for an extension of time to file a brief and for reconsideration of his motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm.. R. 47.5.4.