Opinion

United States v. Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Aug 2, 2021
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Direct Criminal
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.0%

The opinion

Case: 21-10208 Document: 00515961004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2021

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 2, 2021

No. 21-10208 Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ronnie Mikel Brown,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:14-CR-367-39

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ronnie Brown pleaded guilty of possessing with intent to distribute

methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. He purports to have filed a sec-

ond direct appeal seeking to challenge the district court’s drug quantity cal-

culation at sentencing, and he moves for appointment of substitute counsel,

or, in the alternative, leave to proceed pro se.

*

Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances

set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-10208 Document: 00515961004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2021

No. 21-10208

An indigent criminal defendant in a felony case must be provided

counsel on direct appeal as of right. United States v. Palomo, 80 F.3d 138, 141

(5th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1)(A), (c). But Brown has already filed

a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed on the

government’s motion. See United States v. Brown, No. 16-11148 (5th Cir.

Jan. 9, 2017). A defendant “is not entitled to two appeals,” and a second

appeal from the same conviction is “not properly before this Court.” United

States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978); accord United States v.

Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 632, 633 (5th Cir. 2016).

Accordingly, the second appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Brown’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel

and his alternative motion for leave to proceed pro se are DENIED.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.