Case: 18-30355 Document: 00515053823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-30355 FILED Summary Calendar July 29, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MOHAMED ADMED HASSAN OMRAN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:14-CR-35-1

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * We have already resolved one appeal by Mohamed Admed Hassan Omran from the district court’s denial of his motion for a writ of coram nobis.

See United States v. Omran, 730 F. App’x 237, 238 (5th Cir. 2018). On November 21, 2017, just six weeks after he filed the first appeal but before we had ruled, Omran filed a second motion for writ of coram nobis in the district court. The district court denied the second motion on March 5, 2018, holding

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 18-30355 Document: 00515053823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2019

No. 18-30355 that it had no jurisdiction due to the pendency of the first appeal. On March 15, 2018, Omran filed an appeal from that second denial order. That is the appeal before us now.

We resolved the first appeal by affirming the district court on July 10, 2018, almost four months after Omran filed his second appeal. Our mandate issued on August 1, 2018.

As to the current appeal, we remanded the case to the district court on November 21, 2018, for the limited purpose of permitting that court to rule on Omran’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 11, 2018, the district court entered an order granting leave to proceed IFP, and the case returned to us.

Omran raised the same issues in his second, November 2017 motion for writ of error coram nobis that he had raised in his appeal of the denial of the first motion. Because the matters in the second motion were central to that first appeal, Omran’s notice of appeal as to the denial of his first motion divested the district court of jurisdiction over Omran’s second motion. See Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir. 2005). That is what the district court held in March 2018.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.