In re: Daniels v. , 203 F. App'x 442 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6999
In Re: TERRENCE ARNEZ DANIELS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
(5:01-cr-00736-CMC-2)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrence Arnez Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Arnez Daniels petitions for a writ of error
coram nobis, seeking an evidentiary hearing to consider his claims
of ineffective assistance of counsel and unconstitutional
sentencing enhancements. A writ of error coram nobis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000) can be used to vacate a conviction when
there is a fundamental error resulting in conviction, and no other
means of relief is available. See United States v. Morgan, 346
U.S. 502, 509-11 (1954); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067,
1074-75 (4th Cir. 1988). But see Carlisle v. United States, 517
U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (noting “it is difficult to conceive of a
situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram
nobis would be necessary or appropriate.”). The remedy is also
limited to petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to
their conviction. See Carlisle, 517 U.S. at 429.
Our review of the petition leads us to conclude that
Daniels failed to establish that his conviction is invalid, or that
he is no longer in custody pursuant to his conviction, and he is
therefore not entitled to coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we
grant Daniels’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, grant his
motion to file an oversized brief, and deny the petition for a writ
of error coram nobis. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -