# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 50751 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jimmy Zavala,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04

- CR

- 425 -2

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  ***** Jimmy Zavala, federal inmate # 49053

- 180 , appeals the denial of his motion to correct the record relating to the appeal of his fifth 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his 2005 convictions for various drug, firearms, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses. Zavala also moves to supplement the record on appeal with various documents relating to his

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 17, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50751 Document: 00516681036 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2023No. 22

- 50751

2 criminal case and to withdraw the memorandum he filed in support of his

mo tion to supplement the record. “[W]e must consider the basis of our own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary.” Perez v. Stephens , 784 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 2015) . Our appellate jurisdiction extends to “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (emphasis added), as well as a limited number of appealable interlocutory orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) . The denial of Zavala’s motion to correct the record, which related to his already

- resolved appeal in anot her case, was not an appealable final order because it did not end the litigation of his prior § 2255 motion on the merits

. See Cunningham v. Hamilton C n ty., Ohio , 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999)

. Nor did it constitute an appealable interlocutory order. Moreov er, because we have previously resolved Zavala’s appeal of the denial of his fifth § 2255 motion, the issues raised in his motion to correct are now moot. See United States v. Heredia

- Holguin , 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Zavala , No. 22

- 50318 (5th Cir. Nov. 18, 2022) (unpublished panel order)

. Accordingly, we **DISMISS** the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Zavala’s motion s to supplement the record and to withdraw the

memor andum in support of his motion to supplement the record are **DENIED**

. Since 2008, Zavala has unsuccessfully challenged the validity of his 2005 convictions through repeated, and often repetitive and successive § 2255 motions and attendant postjudgment and di scovery motions. Recently, a panel of t his court warned Zavala that filing frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive pleadings could result in the imposition of sanctions

. See Zavala , No. 22

- 50318. Zavala is again **WARNED** that filing frivolous, repetit ive, or otherwise abusive pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction could result in the imposition of sanctions, including Case: 22-50751 Document: 00516681036 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2023No. 22

- 50751

3 dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction

. Case: 22-50751 Document: 00516681036 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2023