United States v. Zavala ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50751 Document: 00516681036 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50751
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 17, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jimmy Zavala,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-425-2
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jimmy Zavala, federal inmate # 49053-180, appeals the denial of his
motion to correct the record relating to the appeal of his fifth 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion attacking his 2005 convictions for various drug, firearms,
money laundering, and conspiracy offenses. Zavala also moves to
supplement the record on appeal with various documents relating to his
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50751 Document: 00516681036 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
No. 22-50751
criminal case and to withdraw the memorandum he filed in support of his
motion to supplement the record.
“[W]e must consider the basis of our own jurisdiction, sua sponte if
necessary.” Perez v. Stephens, 784 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 2015). Our
appellate jurisdiction extends to “appeals from all final decisions of the
district courts of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (emphasis added), as
well as a limited number of appealable interlocutory orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a). The denial of Zavala’s motion to correct the record, which related
to his already-resolved appeal in another case, was not an appealable final
order because it did not end the litigation of his prior § 2255 motion on the
merits. See Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999).
Nor did it constitute an appealable interlocutory order. Moreover, because
we have previously resolved Zavala’s appeal of the denial of his fifth § 2255
motion, the issues raised in his motion to correct are now moot. See United
States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v.
Zavala, No. 22-50318 (5th Cir. Nov. 18, 2022) (unpublished panel order).
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Zavala’s motions to supplement the record and to withdraw the
memorandum in support of his motion to supplement the record are
DENIED.
Since 2008, Zavala has unsuccessfully challenged the validity of his
2005 convictions through repeated, and often repetitive and successive
§ 2255 motions and attendant postjudgment and discovery motions.
Recently, a panel of this court warned Zavala that filing frivolous, repetitive,
or otherwise abusive pleadings could result in the imposition of sanctions.
See Zavala, No. 22-50318. Zavala is again WARNED that filing frivolous,
repetitive, or otherwise abusive pleadings in this court or any court subject to
this court’s jurisdiction could result in the imposition of sanctions, including
2
Case: 22-50751 Document: 00516681036 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
No. 22-50751
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings
in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
3