Court Opinion

ID: 9371211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 19:00:26.25568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.128010
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50090         Document: 00516646584             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50090
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                              February 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Omar Jose Calzada,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:21-CV-610
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Omar Jose Calzada, former federal prisoner # 99850-280, pleaded
   guilty to conspiracy to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants. He now
   appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis.
   Calzada argues that (1) the district court erred by finding that the search
   warrant and affidavit were properly authenticated, (2) the Government

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50090      Document: 00516646584           Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/15/2023

                                     No. 22-50090

   engaged in fraud upon the court by failing to submit a valid state warrant at
   the motion to suppress hearing, and (3) the trial court did not have
   jurisdiction in his case because the state did not transfer custody of Calzada
   to the federal government. This court reviews 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 [of coram nobis] 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).
          Calzada did not allege in his district court pleadings that the trial court
   did not have jurisdiction because the state did not transfer Calzada’s custody
   to the federal government. We will not consider this argument for the first
   time on appeal. See Rener v. United States, 475 F.2d 125, 127 (5th Cir. 1973).
   As for Calzada’s remaining claims, he fails to show that sound reasons exist
   for his failure to seek appropriate earlier relief. See United States v. Dyer, 136
   F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Facts giving rise to his claims of search warrant
   authenticity and the Government’s alleged act of fraud upon the court were
   discoverable at the time of his suppression hearing in 2013, and thus could
   have been raised at the suppression hearing, on direct appeal, or in a timely
   28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 535 (5th
   Cir. 2004). Because his independent “audit” was unnecessary to bring the
   aforementioned claims and it resulted in the filing of criminal harassment
   charges against him, it is not a sound reason for failing to seek appropriate
   earlier relief. See Dyer, 136 F.3d at 422. As he has failed to make the
   necessary showing of a complete miscarriage of justice, the district court did
   not abuse its discretion by denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. See
   Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 535.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           2