Court Opinion

ID: 9952759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 18:00:49.722214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:12.176951
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20575            Document: 29-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/20/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                   ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              March 20, 2024
                                     No. 23-20575                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________                                     Clerk

Jose Rojas-Meliton,

                                                                 Petitioner—Appellant,

                                          versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,

                                             Respondent—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:22-CV-537
                   ______________________________

Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Jose Rojas-Meliton, Texas prisoner # 02149143, was convicted by a
jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 75 years of
imprisonment. He currently appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the order denying

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20575        Document: 29-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                 No. 23-20575

his motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) to reopen the
period to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application.
       Because Rojas-Meliton’s Rule 60(b) motion sought relief from the
order denying his motion to reopen under Rule 4(a)(6), his motion for a
certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary. See Ochoa Canales v.
Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007); Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d
491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002). We dispense with further briefing because this
appeal may be resolved on the available record.
       In his Rule 60(b) motion and on appeal, Rojas-Meliton primarily
argues that he was entitled to relief under Rule 4(a)(6), because his counsel
abandoned him—resulting in his missing the deadline to appeal—and that
counsel’s abandonment is an “extraordinary circumstance” entitling him to
relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 123 (2017).
However, this court has already “reject[ed] Rojas-Meliton’s argument that
his counsel abandoned him and that such abandonment warranted an
exception to Rule 4(a)(6)(A)’s strictures.”          Rojas-Meliton v. Lumpkin,
No. 23-20308, 2023 WL 7490049, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 10, 2023)
(unpublished). Rojas-Meliton’s arguments to the contrary are barred by the
law-of-the-case doctrine, which precludes this court from reexamining the
issue. See Alpha/Omega Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 272 F.3d
276, 279 (5th Cir. 2001).
       Accordingly, Rojas-Meliton has failed to demonstrate any abuse of
discretion in the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. See Buck,
580 U.S. at 122-23; Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2014). The
district court’s denial of Rojas-Meliton’s Rule 60(b) motion is
AFFIRMED.

                                       2