In Re: David Acevedo v. ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1732
In Re: DAVID A. ACEVEDO,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
(3:05-cr-00214-JRS-1)
Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 4, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Acevedo, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David A. Acevedo petitions this court for a writ of error
coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012). In his
petition, Acevedo alleges that his convictions are invalid and
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”) (citation and internal quotation marks 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 Acevedo fails to establish that he is
entitled to a writ of error coram nobis. Accordingly, although
we grant Acevedo leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the
petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We dispense with oral
2
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