Louis Hyman v. United States ( 2011 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1441
___________
LOUIS HYMAN,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-10-cv-05464)
District Judge: Honorable Garrett E. Brown Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 9, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 12, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Louis Hyman, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix,
New Jersey, appeals the District Court‟s order denying his petition for a writ of coram
nobis. After Hyman filed his brief, the government filed a motion for summary
affirmance. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant the government‟s motion and
summarily affirm the District Court‟s order.1
In February 2003, Hyman pleaded guilty in the District Court to firearms
charges, and was sentenced to 176 months‟ imprisonment. Hyman did not appeal that
judgment. In 2007, however, he began to file a flurry of documents in the District Court
attacking his conviction and sentence. In July 2007, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. The District Court denied the motion as time-barred, and we refused to issue a
certificate of appealability (COA). Hyman then challenged his sentence under the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, by filing a petition for a writ of audita querela. The District
Court denied the petition, and we affirmed. Hyman next filed another motion under §
2255; the District Court again denied the motion, and we denied Hyman‟s request for a
COA.
In October 2010, Hyman filed the petition for coram nobis that is at issue
here. He claimed that his counsel had provided ineffective assistance throughout his
criminal proceedings. The District Court denied the petition, concluding that insofar as
Hyman wished to present his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, he was required to
proceed under § 2255. Hyman then filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
We agree with the District Court‟s disposition of this case. Coram nobis is
an extraordinary remedy that “has traditionally been used to attack [federal] convictions
with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer „in custody‟ for purposes
1
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise de
novo review over legal issues arising from the denial of coram nobis relief. United States
v. Rhines, 640 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
2
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2000) (per
curiam). The writ is available only to address errors that are “fundamental and go to the
jurisdiction of the trial court, thus rendering the trial itself invalid.” Rhines, 640 F.3d at
71 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Another limit, of course, is that an extraordinary
remedy may not issue when alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available.”
United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2220 (2009).
Here, coram nobis relief is not available to Hyman because he remains in
custody. See Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189. It is of no moment that the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) limits Hyman‟s right to prosecute a second or
successive habeas motion, see § 2255(h); “the procedural barriers erected by AEDPA are
not sufficient to enable a petitioner to resort to coram nobis merely because he/she is
unable to meet AEDPA‟s gatekeeping requirements.” Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189-90.
Accordingly, the District Court was correct to deny Hyman‟s motion, and we will grant
the government‟s motion for summary affirmance and will affirm the District Court‟s
order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
3