United States v. Calzada

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