William Rebrook, III v. United States , 589 F. App'x 130 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6352
WILLIAM EDWARD REBROOK, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cv-01009)
Submitted: September 26, 2014 Decided: December 30, 2014
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lonnie Carl Simmons, DITRAPANO, BARRETT, DIPIERO, MCGINLEY &
SIMMONS PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R.
Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Edward ReBrook, III, appeals the district
court’s order, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation
(except as otherwise stated), denying his petition for a writ of
error coram nobis, and dismissing the action. In his writ,
ReBrook alleges that his conviction for wire fraud, under 18
U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346 (2012), is no longer valid in light of
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010). We note that a
writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort, United
States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988), and that
it is narrowly limited to extraordinary cases presenting
circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice. United
States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009). We find no abuse of
discretion in the district court’s denial of the writ, United
States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 251-52 (4th Cir. 2012)
(providing review standard), and accordingly affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court that the conviction is
valid under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 under a property fraud theory.
ReBrook v. United States, No. 2:10-cv-01009 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 11,
2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3