United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-20447 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Howard Grant, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:09-CR-424-3 

______________________________ 

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Howard Grant, former federal prisoner #43671-279, was convicted by 

a jury in 2010 of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and two counts of 

aiding and abetting health care fraud. He appeals the district court’s denial 

of his petition for writ of coram nobis challenging those convictions. The 

_____________________ 

*

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

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 27, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20447 Document: 00516728820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
No. 22-20447 

2 

Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance and an 

alternative motion for an extension of time in which to file its brief. 

When reviewing the denial of a writ of coram nobis, we review the 

district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and 

the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of discretion.” 

Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated on 

other grounds, 559 U.S. 1046 (2010). Even affording Grant the liberal 

construction that he is due, he proffers no discernible argument that he has 

satisfied the prerequisites for coram nobis relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 

F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Esogbue, 357 

F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance and alternative motion for 

extension of time are DENIED. 

Finally, this court has previously warned Grant that filing frivolous, 

repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings would invite the imposition of 

sanctions and imposed a sanction of $300. See United States v. Grant, 740 F. 

App’x 412, 412–13 (5th Cir. 2018). The warnings and sanction have not 

deterred Grant. Accordingly, a SANCTION IS IMPOSED. Grant is 

ordered to pay a monetary sanction in the amount of $500, payable to the 

clerk of this court. Grant is BARRED from filing, in this court or any court 

subject to this court’s jurisdiction, any challenge to his convictions or 

sentences until the sanction is paid in full unless he first obtains leave of the 

court in which he seeks to file such a challenge. Grant is also WARNED

that the further filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive challenges 

to his convictions or sentences in this court or any court subject to this 

Case: 22-20447 Document: 00516728820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
No. 22-20447 

3 

court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional and progressively more 

severe sanctions. See In re Lampton, 667 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Case: 22-20447 Document: 00516728820 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2023