IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30819

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOHAMED ADMED HASSAN ABDALLAH OMRAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:14-CR-35-1

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohamed Admed Hassan Abdallah Omran, former federal prisoner 

# 12752-049 and immigration detainee # A079 680 001, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for a writ of coram nobis challenging his conviction 

of two counts of failure to depart the United States pursuant to an order of 

removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C). We review the district court’s ultimate 

decision to deny coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion. Santos-Sanchez v. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 10, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30819 Document: 00514548184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2018
No. 17-30819

2

United States, 548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 559 

U.S. 1046 (2010).

Omran raises a number of issues regarding his trial for which he 

previously sought relief on direct appeal; they cannot form the basis for coram 

nobis relief. See United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Additionally, he argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by 

denying his motion to subpoena witnesses regarding certain New Hampshire 

criminal charges, by failing to enforce certain unidentified subpoenas, and by 

failing to consider Omran’s proposed jury instructions. Although Omran knew 

of the district court’s actions at the time of trial and thus could have raised 

these claims in his direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he did not do so. 

Further, he fails to provide a reason for failing to do so or to explain why no 

other remedy was available. Accordingly, coram nobis relief is not appropriate 

as to these claims. See Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 535; United States v. Dyer, 136 

F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Similarly, Omran fails to explain why he did not 

previously raise the claim he raises here that his ex parte response to a district 

court order constituted a motion pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(7)(A) 

challenging the order of removal underlying the criminal charges in the instant 

matter. See Dyer, 136 F.3d at 427. Omran knew of the claim at the time when 

he filed the ex parte response which he now asserts constituted his 

§ 1252(b)(7)(A) motion challenging to the underlying removal order, making 

coram nobis relief unavailable. See, e.g., Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 535; Dyer, 136 

F.3d at 422.

Omran also challenges various unidentified courts’ rejections of his 

various unidentified civil suits and efforts for injunctions, as well as our 

decision on direct appeal. A coram nobis proceeding is not the proper forum in 

which to challenge the decisions of district courts in unrelated civil actions or 

 Case: 17-30819 Document: 00514548184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2018
No. 17-30819

3

this court’s decision in his direct appeal. See Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 534; Dyer, 

136 F.3d at 422.

In light of the foregoing, Omran has failed to show that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his writ of coram nobis. See Santos-Sanchez, 

548 F.3d at 330. The judgment of the district court denying Omran’s motion 

for a writ of coram nobis is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-30819 Document: 00514548184 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2018