Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roque URDIALES GARCIA, Also Known as El Profe, Also Known as Roberto, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-29
Citations: 442 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 11-20259
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roque URDIALES GARCIA, Also Known as El Profe, Also Known as Roberto, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 935–937

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roque URDIALES GARCIA, Also Known as El Profe, Also Known as Roberto, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-20259
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 2011.
Mary Jane Harmon, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roque Urdíales Garcia, Greenville, IL, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roque Garcia, federal prisoner # 49905-079, appeals the denial of his motion for writ of error comm nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). He contends that the district court erred in not making findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allow this court to review the decision. He also asserts that the court should have vacated the sentences imposed for his three vacated conspiracy convictions because it was without jurisdiction to impose them.
Although the district court did not address its jurisdiction, we must consider it, sua sponte if necessary. See EEOC v. Agro Distribution, LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 467 (5th Cir.2009). Garcia was not entitled to relief through a motion for a writ of error comm nobis, because he is still in custody. See United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir.2004). Because he is challenging his federal sentence, the district court should have construed his motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000). That court lacked jurisdiction to do so, however, because Garcia had previously filed a § 2255 mo tion, and this court had not authorized the filing of a successive § 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Harris, 388 Fed.Appx. 385, 386 (5th Cir.2010); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Garcia's appeal is "from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion." See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam).
Therefore, the judgment is VACATED, and a judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction is RENDERED. Garcia's motion to remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law is DENIED.
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.