Court Opinion

ID: 9387683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 18:00:36.494007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.107444
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11039     Document: 00516715403         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                  No. 21-11039                               FILED
                                                                         April 18, 2023
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   Mariamma Viju,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   United States of America,

                                                           Defendant—Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                   USDC Nos. 3:19-CV-2048, 3:15-CR-240-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Mariamma Viju appeals from the district court’s denial of her petition
   for a writ of coram nobis. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the
   appeal based on the waiver provision in Viju’s plea agreement, an alternative
   motion for summary affirmance, and an alternative motion for an extension

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-11039         Document: 00516715403            Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                         No. 21-11039

   of time to file a merits brief. Although the district court held that Viju’s
   petition was barred by the waiver provision in her plea agreement, we do not
   need to reach that issue to resolve this appeal. See United States v. Story,
   439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).
          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 [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). “[W]e have denied numerous attempts to collaterally attack a
   restitution order . . . because once orders become final on direct review, ‘they
   become res judicata’” as to any admissible matter that was offered and
   received, or that might have been offered, as to any claim or demand. United
   States v. Parker, 927 F.3d 374, 381 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Travelers Indem.
   Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 152 (2009)) (footnote omitted). Because Viju’s
   petition for a writ of coram nobis was a collateral attack on a restitution order,
   the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to grant
   the petition. See Parker, 927 F.3d at 381.
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on this basis.
   The Government’s motions to dismiss the appeal, for summary affirmance,
   and for an extension of time to file a merits brief are DENIED. 1

          1
              Judge Oldham would enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss.

                                               2