Barber v. United States ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6076
    DONALD LOUIS BARBER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-96-21, CA-02-7)
    Submitted:   March 5, 2003                 Decided:   April 2, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald Louis Barber, Appellant Pro Se.    Thomas Richard Ascik,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Louis Barber appeals the district court’s order denying
    his petition for a writ of audita querela.            We have reviewed the
    record and find no reversible error.         Although the district court
    addressed Barber’s claims on the merits, we find that a writ of
    audita querela was not available because Barber could have raised
    his claims in a motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).           See United
    States v. Torres, 
    282 F.3d 1241
    , 1245 (10th Cir. 2002).             The fact
    that Barber was unable to obtain relief under § 2255 does not alter
    our conclusion.        See United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 
    237 F.3d 1077
    , 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A prisoner may not circumvent valid
    congressional limitations on collateral attacks by asserting that
    those very limitations create a gap in the postconviction remedies
    that must be filled by the common law writs.”); In re Jones, 
    226 F.3d 328
    , 333 (4th Cir. 2000).         Accordingly, we affirm.      We deny
    Barber’s motion to stay 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6076

Judges: Williams, Michael, Traxler

Filed Date: 4/2/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024