Case: 23-50367 Document: 00516903292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50367 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 21, 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 Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Omar Jose Calzada, former federal prisoner # 99850-280, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the district court’s denial of his writ of coram nobis petition. Under Rule 60(b)(4), a federal court may set aside civil judgments in two circumstances: (1) if the district court lacked personal or _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50367 Document: 00516903292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023

No. 23-50367

subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) if the district court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2003). We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion de novo. Id. Calzada also filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal, a motion to expedite the appeal, and a motion for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Even assuming that Rule 60(b)(4) is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a district court’s denial of a coram nobis petition, Calazada’s arguments are unavailing. First, the district court had jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231; see also United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 838 (5th Cir. 2014). Second, we reject Calzada’s argument that the district court violated his due process rights because he was “seized” without a federal arrest warrant or summons issued prior to the filing of the criminal complaint.

Calzada was arrested without a warrant but, at the time of his arrest, police had probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. See United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995). We do not reach his newly raised fraud and misconduct claims. See XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Kiewit Offshore Servs., Ltd., 513 F.3d 146, 153 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and Calzada’s motions are DENIED.