United States v. Francis Cox ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    OCT 8 2021
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   19-30254
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
    3:11-cr-00022-RJB-1
    v.
    FRANCIS SCHAEFFER COX,                           MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Alaska
    Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted June 17, 2021
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Before: RAWLINSON, CHRISTEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant Francis Schaeffer Cox (Cox) appeals the district court’s denial of
    his motion for a writ of audita querela. Cox was convicted of, among other things,
    conspiracy to murder a federal officer in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1117
     and 1114
    and solicitation to murder a federal officer in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 373
     and
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    1114. On appeal, a previous panel affirmed the conspiracy conviction, but
    reversed the solicitation conviction. See United States v. Cox, 705 F. App’x 573,
    575 (9th Cir. 2017). Cox maintains that the panel’s reversal of the solicitation
    charge undermined the “jurisdictional foundation” of the conspiracy charge.
    1.     Reviewing de novo, we affirm the denial of Cox’s motion seeking a
    writ of audita querela. See United States v. Gamboa, 
    608 F.3d 492
    , 494 (9th Cir.
    2010). Cox is precluded from seeking the writ because he may pursue the same
    relief by way of a habeas petition. See 
    id.
     at 494–95. Cox concedes that he may
    file a habeas petition in the future, and provides no authority to support the
    preemptive issuance of a writ of audita querela prior to filing a habeas petition.
    2.     Cox reiterates his insufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, but the
    parties agree that we are bound by the prior panel’s decision rejecting this claim.
    For the reasons set forth in the prior disposition, we again reject Cox’s
    insufficiency argument. See Cox, 705 F. App’x at 576.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-30254

Filed Date: 10/8/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2021