Case: 24-20365 Document: 77-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-20365 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 6, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Alberto Ramos, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-69-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Alberto Ramos appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20365 Document: 77-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2025

No. 24-20365

methamphetamine, in violation of § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

First, Ramos argues that the Government improperly bolstered and vouched for the testimony of a codefendant during the Government’s examination of that witness and its rebuttal closing argument. However, Ramos has not demonstrated any plain error related to the Government’s questions and remarks. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Wilson, 143 F.4th 647, 664 (5th Cir. 2025); United States v. Wyly, 193 F.3d 289, 299 (5th Cir. 1999).

Second, Ramos asserts that the district court erred when it limited his cross-examination of a codefendant regarding prior specific instances of conduct. However, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in sustaining the Government’s objections to his questions under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b); United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 433 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433, 438, 443-44 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.