United States v. Ruiz
This text of United States v. Ruiz (United States v. Ruiz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20884 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE LUIS RUIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-91-CR-27-4 -------------------- April 10, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Luis Ruiz, federal prisoner #59024-079, appeals the
district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram
nobis, which was treated as a successive motion to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The district court properly denied Ruiz’ petition for writ
of error coram nobis. The writ of error coram nobis is used to
attack invalid convictions which have continuing consequences
when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in
custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-20884 -2-
Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506-13 (1954). Because Ruiz is currently
incarcerated, this remedy is unavailable to him as a matter of
law.
Because Ruiz was asserting that his sentence was
unconstitutional and should be vacated, the district court
properly treated Ruiz’ petition as a successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court did not err in denying
Ruiz’ successive motion to vacate his sentence. Because Ruiz
failed to obtain authorization from this court prior to filing
his successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Ruiz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ruiz-ca5-2002.