Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas
HAYNES, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.
HAYNES, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Parker was convicted of an assortment of fraud crimes more
than a decade ago. Since then, he has revisited our court at
least ten times through a combination of a direct appeal,
appeals from 28 U.S.C. § 2255 denials, requests for
authorization to file successive § 2255 motions, and a
petition for writ of mandamus. Though the procedural vehicles
have changed, his arguments have not, and we have repeatedly
denied his requests for certificates of appealability (COA)
and authorization to file successive § 2255 motions.
once again tried his luck with these arguments before the
district court, filing another motion under § 2255. The
district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction
because Parker failed to receive authorization from our court
to file a successive petition under § 2255. Parker then
requested reconsideration, which the district court denied.
He has now appealed, implicitly requesting a COA. We DENY
Parker a COA, DISMISS his appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
and sanction him for appealing his collateral attack on his
Parker has also appealed a new issue not foreclosed by his
prior efforts. In the district court, he challenged the
amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Parker argues
that the victims of his crimes have recovered some of their
damages through a civil judgment. The statutes governing
restitution grant Parker the right to reduce his restitution
order based on subsequent civil judgments. But Parker failed
to present necessary evidence to succeed on his claim. We
thus AFFIRM the district court's denial of his request to
quash the Government's writ of execution.
Parker used his company, San Antonio Trade Group, Inc.
("SATG"), to defraud the Export-Import Bank of the
United States ("Ex-Im Bank"). He collaborated with
people in Mexico to seek loans from United States companies
based on lies and forged documents. Ex-Im Bank insured and
guaranteed the loans. Once the loans were insured and
guaranteed, Parker diverted millions of dollars in loan money
to himself rather than for the stated purposes. Along the
way, he committed wire fraud, money laundering, tax evasion,
tax fraud, and conspiracy.
Parker was caught and pleaded guilty to those crimes under a
written plea agreement. In accordance with the plea
agreement, the district court sentenced Parker to a term of
imprisonment and supervised release and ordered Parker to pay
$10 million in restitution.
then, Parker has doggedly tried to undo his conviction.
Parker's first attack on his plea agreement and
conviction came when he appealed his conviction. See
United States v. Parker, 372 Fed.Appx. 558 (5th Cir.
2010) (per curiam). He argued that the indictment, plea
agreement, and plea colloquy did not set out facts that
proved he committed some of the alleged crimes. Id.
at 560-62. We rejected his arguments and affirmed.
Id. at 563.
than a year later, Parker filed his first § 2255 motion
in April 2011. His arguments ranged wide, including many
related to the arguments he makes in this appeal: the
Government committed a Brady violation or elicited or
permitted false evidence, and his counsel was ineffective by
failing to challenge the wire fraud counts for lack of an
interstate nexus. The district court identified and rejected
those arguments. Parker sought reconsideration, which was
also denied. We denied Parker a COA, concluding that all
reasonable jurists would agree that the district court's
order was correct.
that motion and the motions leading to this appeal, Parker
filed numerous other motions in the district court. The
district court rejected all those motions on the grounds that
they were unauthorized successive motions, see
§ 2255(h) (requiring a defendant who files a
"second or successive motion" to receive
authorization to file it from the proper court of appeals in
accordance with § 2244), or, to the extent they were
not, they were barred by § 2255's one- year period
of limitations, see § 2255(f). Each time Parker
appealed the district court's order, and each time we
denied him a COA. The most recent time we addressed one of
Parker's appeals, a judge of this court imposed sanctions
on him for filing frivolous appeals.
he filed district court motions, Parker also twice requested
that our court grant him authorization to file a successive
motion. We denied authorization both times-once because
Parker had not identified an exception to the successive
motion bar, see In re Parker, 575 Fed.Appx. 415 (5th
Cir. 2014), and another time because the evidence he pointed
to did not satisfy the "newly discovered evidence"
exception to that bar.
we have addressed Parker's case eight times: one
affirmance on direct appeal, five denials of COAs, and two
denials of requests for authorization to file a successive
Parker tried again. After each of his previous attempts
failed, Parker filed another motion under § 2255. The
district court again dismissed the motion as an unauthorized
successive motion. Parker then requested reconsideration,
which was denied. He then requested reconsideration of the
district court's denial of reconsideration. The district
court again denied reconsideration. Parker appealed from the
order denying reconsideration of the order denying