United States v. Nelson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30485 Document: 00516746898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-30485 May 11, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Nelson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:93-CR-55-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Michael Nelson, former federal prisoner # 02461-095, filed a petition
for writ of coram nobis alleging misconduct by law enforcement in connection
with his 1994 drug convictions. The district court denied the petition and
subsequently denied Nelson’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30485 Document: 00516746898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30485
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and motion to supplement the Rule
59(e) motion. Nelson appeals.
We review the district court’s “decision to deny the writ [of coram
nobis] for abuse of discretion.” Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d
327, 330 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1046 (2010).
“The writ [of coram nobis] will issue only when no other remedy is available
and when sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief.”
United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation
marks, brackets, and citation omitted); see also United States v. Esogbue, 357
F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 2004). As Nelson fails to show why his claims
presented in his petition for a writ of coram nobis could not have been raised
previously, he fails to show an abuse of the district court’s discretion. See
Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 535.
“Under Rule 59(e), amending a judgment is appropriate (1) where
there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) where the
movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable;
or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact.” Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F. 3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi,
635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). We review the denial of relief under Rule
59(e) for abuse of discretion. See Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567,
570 (5th Cir. 2019). Nelson’s argument challenging the denial of Rule 59(e)
relief, including the denial of his motion to supplement, does not present any
changes in the law, new evidence, or manifest errors in the order denying of
coram nobis relief. Nelson has failed to show that the district court abused
its discretion in denying relief under Rule 59(e). See Trevino, 944 F.3d at 570;
Seven Elves, 635 F.2d at 402.
2
Case: 22-30485 Document: 00516746898 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30485
Nelson has also filed a motion entitled “Judicial Notice.” This
pleading requests no specific relief separate from his arguments on appeal.
The motion is unnecessary.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
3