The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-50170•United States v. Charpia
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
No. 20-50170
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jill Ann Charpia, also known as Jill Charpia, also known as Jill
A. Charpia, also known as Jill Hoops, also known as Jill A.
Hoops, also known as Jill Tharpia,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:12-CR-704-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jill Ann Charpia, formerly federal prisoner # 02076-380, pled guilty to
making false statements in seeking funds from the United States Department
of Defense (DOD), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1)–(3). As part of her
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 29, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-50170 Document: 00515687712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 20-50170
2
sentence, the district court ordered her to pay $920,000 in restitution to a
DOD unit, pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. She appeals
the district court’s denial of her motion to quash a writ of garnishment related
to that restitution order.
An order denying a motion to quash a writ of garnishment is not a final
order, and Charpia has not attempted to “meet [her] obligation to
demonstrate [appellate] jurisdiction by adequately briefing the issue.”
United States v. Branham, 690 F.3d 633, 635 (5th Cir. 2012); see 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1291, 1292. Accordingly, we DISMISS her appeal without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. See Branham, 690 F.3d at 636.
Case: 20-50170 Document: 00515687712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.