United States v. Grant

Case: 22-20447 Document: 00516728820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20447 FILED
Summary Calendar April 27, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Howard Grant,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-424-3
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Howard Grant, former federal prisoner #43671-279, was convicted by
a jury in 2010 of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and two counts of
aiding and abetting health care fraud. He appeals the district court’s denial
of his petition for writ of coram nobis challenging those convictions. The
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20447 Document: 00516728820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
No. 22-20447
Government has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance and an
alternative motion for an extension of time in which to file its brief.
When reviewing the denial of a writ of coram nobis, 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 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). Even affording Grant the liberal
construction that he is due, he proffers no discernible argument that he has
satisfied the prerequisites for coram nobis relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Esogbue, 357
F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
Government’s motion for summary affirmance and alternative motion for
extension of time are DENIED.
Finally, this court has previously warned Grant that filing frivolous,
repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings would invite the imposition of
sanctions and imposed a sanction of $300. See United States v. Grant, 740 F.
App’x 412, 412–13 (5th Cir. 2018). The warnings and sanction have not
deterred Grant. Accordingly, a SANCTION IS IMPOSED. Grant is
ordered to pay a monetary sanction in the amount of $500, payable to the
clerk of this court. Grant is BARRED from filing, in this court or any court
subject to this court’s jurisdiction, any challenge to his convictions or
sentences until the sanction is paid in full unless he first obtains leave of the
court in which he seeks to file such a challenge. Grant is also WARNED
that the further filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive challenges
to his convictions or sentences in this court or any court subject to this
2
Case: 22-20447 Document: 00516728820 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
No. 22-20447
court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional and progressively more
severe sanctions. See In re Lampton, 667 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 2012).
3