United States v. Harrington Campbell ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6829 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6829
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HARRINGTON CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00232-CCB-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harrington Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6829 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Harrington Campbell appeals the district court’s omnibus order denying without
prejudice Campbell’s petitions for a writ of error coram nobis, as well as his motions for
other forms of relief, and the court’s later order denying Campbell’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment. In relevant part, the court denied the coram nobis
petitions after acknowledging that Campbell advanced arguments related to his convictions
that were more properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that Campbell’s initial
§ 2255 motion was dismissed on timeliness grounds. Although Campbell was released
from prison in June 2022, he is still serving his supervised-release term and, as such, is
considered “in custody” for the purpose of § 2255. See United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d
233, 239 (4th Cir. 2017). Because the more usual remedy is available, we agree with the
district court that Campbell cannot seek relief from his convictions through a coram nobis
petition. See United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2022). Finally,
because Campbell did not advance any viable bases for his Rule 59(e) motion, we discern
no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of that motion. See United States v. Taylor, 54
F.4th 795, 802 (4th Cir. 2022) (providing standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Campbell,
No. 1:07-cr-00232-CCB-1 (D. Md. filed Apr. 24, 2023 & entered Apr. 25, 2023; May 9,
2023). We deny Campbell’s motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) and
supplemental motion for a COA; for transcripts at government expense; and to allow the
docket to reflect that the district court denied a COA in this case. We dispense with oral
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6829 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3