Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ZOLLINO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-18
Citations: 141 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: Nos. 03-51250, 04-50106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ZOLLINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ZOLLINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 03-51250, 04-50106.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 18, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret M. Embry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John F. Carroll, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Zollino, federal prisoner #55356-053, appeals the denial of two post-judgment motions challenging the validity of his restitution order, his 'Writ of Error to Correct Judgment," and his motion to vacate the district court's "Orders of Issuance of Writ of Garnishment, where no Restitution Order [was] Valid or Outstanding." We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Zollino characterizes his pro se "Motion for Writ of Error," as a writ of coram nobis and contends that jurisdiction in the district court was premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Zollino, however, is still incarcerated; therefore, he was not entitled to petition the district court for a writ of coram nobis. United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 & n. 6 (5th Cir.1999). Zollino's pro se motion to vacate the orders issuing writs of garnishment was a de facto attack on the criminal judgment and restitution order, and, therefore, it also lacked a jurisdictional basis. See id. at 886-87. Zollino's motions were unauthorized, and, consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994)
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.