We therefore have no jurisdiction under this statute.”); Lucas, 228 Ct.Cl. at 863, 1981 WL 21510 (“Where, as here, suit is brought and no showing is made that plaintiff has obtained the requisite certificate of innocence by the court, or pardon, this court will not entertain the claim.... Plaintiff here has not met the requirements of the statute and we have no jurisdiction.”). 2) Nonprecedential opinions from the Federal Circuit The Federal Circuit has not addressed this issue in a precedential opinion. However, the most recent citable nonprecedential opinion continued to adhere to the holdings of Moore, McMurry, Lucas, and Grayson: a certificate of innocence is a jurisdictional prerequisite under § 2513. See Chevalier v. United States, 329 Fed.Appx. 924, 926 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). But see Bolduc v. United States, 248
holding the court lacked jurisdiction under  1495 and 2513 without a certificate of innocence from the district court holding that court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction under  2513 when trial courts order dismissing plaintiffs indictment and vacating his sentence failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of  2513 holding that  1495 failed to provide court of federal claims with jurisdiction to hear claim for unjust conviction where requirements of  2513 have not been met holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case holding the court lacked jurisdiction over claim under  2513 without certificate from district court