* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40599 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. ROBERT L MCDORMAN Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-60-1
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert McDorman (“McDorman”) pled guilty to bank fraud subject to a plea agreement which ordered him to pay $3,374,256.21 in restitution to Mauriceville National Bank (“MNB”). In a later civil action, a jury found that MNB was i n pari delicto with McDorman, and should therefore not recover under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) or Texas law. See Rogersv. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-40599

2 (5th Cir. 2008) (relating the facts and upholding thejury’s verdict). McDorman now challenges the criminal restitution order, arguing that because MNB was found to be in pari delicto it would be inequitable to award it the ordered restitution. McDorman argues that the restitution is civil in nature, so the district court should reconsider its order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, “govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings,” F ED
. R

. C IV
. P. 1, while the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings,” F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 1(a)(1). T he word “action” as used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure denotes “the entire controversy.” H argrave v. Oki Nursery, Inc., 646 F.2d 716, 719 (2d Cir. 1980). “Proceeding” means “[t]he regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment.” B LACK ’S L AW D ICTIONA RY 1241 (8th ed. 2004). There is no dispute that restitution was ordered as part of McDorman’s criminal case, and not as part ofany civil action
or proceeding. The penal or compensatory nature of the restitution does not alter the fact that this w as a criminal case governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to criminal cases.” U nited Statesv. Jaimes-Jurado, 254 F. App’x 341, 342 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished); see also United States v. Graham, 248 F. App’x 929, 931 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“Rule 60(b) is not applicable in criminal cases.”). McDorman’s arguments pursuant to Rule 60(b) thus fail. In the alternative, McDorman argues for the first time on appeal that we should issue a writ ofcoram nobis to deny restitution to MNB or that we shouldNo. 08-40599

3 view the take-nothing civil judgment as a subsequent recovery for MNB. But MNB recovered nothing from thecivil case, and so there has been nosatisfaction of the restitution ordered. Nor do we conclude that a later take-nothing judgment by a civil jury constitutes an error by the criminal court “of the most fundamental character” that it would justify a writ of coram nobis

. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954). McDorman voluntarily agreed as part of his plea agreement to pay MNB $3,374,256.21. He has provided no grounds that would lead us to invalidate that agreement years after the judgment in his criminal case has become final. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.