Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zack Zembliest SMITH, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40266
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 19, 2009.
    John Burch Stevens, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Zack Zembliest Smith, III, Salters, SC, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

As part of his 1994 sentence for robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence, Zack Zembliest Smith, III, federal prisoner # 04838-078, was ordered to pay $22,937.12 in restitution. In 2007, Smith filed a pro se “Motion for Clarification of Restitution and Judgment,” asking the district court to clarify that he was not required to make restitution payments until he was released from custody. The district court entered an order stating that Smith was required to make payments while incarcerated and that he could be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Bureau of Prison’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. Smith appeals.

Neither Smith nor the district court provided a specific jurisdictional basis for his motion. In addressing a similar motion, we have considered and rejected various alternative theories of jurisdiction. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 885 (5th Cir.1999). Because Smith essentially has appealed an unauthorized motion, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand the case for entry of an order dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.