United States v. Collier Sessoms, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Collier Sessoms, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COLLIER DOUGLAS SESSOMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00063-BR-1)
Submitted:
November 13, 2012
Decided: November 15, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Collier Douglas Sessoms, Appellant Pro Se.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Carolina, for Appellee.
Jennifer P.
Raleigh, North
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Collier Douglas Sessoms, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district courts order dismissing his self-styled Motion
for [a] Writ of Coram Nobis, which the court construed as a
petition for a writ of audita querela brought under 28 U.S.C.
1651(a) (2006). *
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
A writ of error coram nobis may be used to vacate a
conviction
where
there
is
fundamental
error
resulting
conviction, and no other means of relief is available.
in
United
States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-11 (1954); United States v.
Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012).
limited, however,
to
those
petitioners
custody
to
their
convictions.
pursuant
who
are
The remedy is
no
Carlisle
longer
v.
in
United
States, 517 U.S. 416, 428-29 (1996); Akinsade, 686 F.3d at 252.
Writs of audita querela and coram nobis are similar, but
not identical.
United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245
n.6 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Usually, a writ of coram nobis is used to attack a judgment
that was infirm at the time it issued, for reasons that later
came to light.
Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted).
A writ of audita querela, by contrast, is used to
challenge a judgment that was correct at the time rendered but
which is rendered infirm by matters which arise after its
rendition.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sessoms
petition,
which
challenges
his
convictions
and
sentence
following his guilty plea to transmission of child pornography
and transportation of obscene matters over the Internet, appears
to seek relief in the form of writs of error coram nobis and
audita querela.
Further, a writ of audita querela is not available to
a petitioner when other avenues of relief are available, such as
a
motion
vacate
under
28
U.S.C.A.
2255
(West
Supp.
Torres, 282 F.3d at 1245; United States v. Johnson, 962
2012).
F.2d
to
579,
582
(7th
Cir.
1992).
That
petitioner
may
not
proceed under 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this
court does not alter this conclusion.
See Carrington v. United
States,
2007)
503
F.3d
888,
890
(9th
Cir.
([T]he
statutory
limits on second or successive habeas petitions do not create a
gap in the post-conviction landscape that can be filled with
the common law writs.).
Sessoms
is
currently
in
custody
pursuant
to
his
convictions, and he previously challenged his convictions and
sentence
in
2255
motion.
Although
Sessoms
present
challenges were not raised in his 2255 motion, he has not
sought
authorization
from
successive 2255 motion.
this
court
to
file
second
or
As Sessoms fails to establish the
grounds needed to obtain relief under either writ, we affirm the
district courts judgment.
We deny Sessoms motion to extend
the filing time for new evidence and dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
