In Re: Lawrence Wilder, Sr. v. , 653 F. App'x 212 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1079
In Re: LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
(5:12-cr-00003-H-1)
Submitted: June 15, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., petitions this court for a
writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
(2012). In his petition, Wilder seeks an order from this court
vacating his criminal judgment.
A writ of error coram nobis 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. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009). 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”) (internal quotation marks omitted and brackets
omitted). The remedy is also limited to petitioners who are no
longer in custody pursuant to their conviction. See Carlisle,
517 U.S. at 429. “As a remedy of last resort, the writ of error
coram nobis is granted only where an error is of the most
fundamental character and there exists no other available
remedy.” United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Wilder fails to establish that he is
entitled to a writ of error coram nobis. Accordingly, although
we grant Wilder leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the
petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Wilder’s request for
2
appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3