United States v. Zollino

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 18, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-51250
c/w 04-50106
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ZOLLINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-01-CR-180-1
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
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

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-51250
c/w No. 04-50106
- 2 -
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.

-- 2 of 2 --