Court Opinion

ID: 9841233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:01:05.277666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:33.720268
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50367         Document: 00516903292             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50367
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 21, 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 Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Omar Jose Calzada, former federal prisoner # 99850-280, appeals the
   district court’s denial of his motion under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules
   of Civil Procedure to vacate the district court’s denial of his writ of coram
   nobis petition. Under Rule 60(b)(4), a federal court may set aside civil
   judgments in two circumstances: (1) if the district court lacked personal or

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50367      Document: 00516903292           Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 23-50367

   subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) if the district court acted in a manner
   inconsistent with due process of law. Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co.,
   351 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2003). We review a district court’s denial of a
   Rule 60(b)(4) motion de novo. Id. Calzada also filed a motion for an
   injunction pending appeal, a motion to expedite the appeal, and a motion for
   the appointment of a special prosecutor.
          Even assuming that Rule 60(b)(4) is an appropriate vehicle to
   challenge a district court’s denial of a coram nobis petition, Calazada’s
   arguments are unavailing. First, the district court had jurisdiction. See 18
   U.S.C. § 3231; see also United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 838 (5th Cir.
   2014). Second, we reject Calzada’s argument that the district court violated
   his due process rights because he was “seized” without a federal arrest
   warrant or summons issued prior to the filing of the criminal complaint.
   Calzada was arrested without a warrant but, at the time of his arrest, police
   had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. See United
   States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995). We do not reach his newly
   raised fraud and misconduct claims. See XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kiewit
   Offshore Servs., Ltd., 513 F.3d 146, 153 (5th Cir. 2008).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and Calzada’s
   motions are DENIED.

                                          2