United States v. Mitchell Jackson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 7, 2005
No. 05-12710 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 92-00367-CR-1-HLM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 7, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell Jackson, a federal prisoner serving concurrent 135-month sentences
for drug-related crimes, appeals pro se district court’s ruling denying his petition
for a writ of audita querela through which he sought to be resentenced in light of
the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct.
738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005). On appeal, Jackson concedes that he cannot raise a
Booker claim through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, but argues that the
inadequacy of § 2255 allows him to use the writ of audita querela to obtain
postconviction relief.
Audita querela was an ancient writ used to attack the enforcement of a
judgment after it was rendered. United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “We review de novo the question of whether a prisoner
may challenge his sentence by filing a motion for a writ of audita querela.” Id.“[F]ederal courts may properly fill the interstices of the federal
postconviction remedial framework through remedies available at common law.”
Id. at 1175 (internal quotation omitted). The writ of audita querela, however, may
not be granted when relief is cognizable under § 2255.1 Id. Because Jackson is
1
28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides, in relevant part, that:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of
Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that . . . the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law . . . may move
the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the
sentence.
2
collaterally attacking his sentence as unconstitutional, the appropriate avenue of
relief is § 2255. See id.
Federal courts must look beyond the labels of motions filed by pro se
inmates to interpret them under whatever statute would provide relief. United
States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990). Here, Jackson
specifically requested that his motion not be recharacterized as a § 2255 motion.
However, Jackson would be unable to obtain Booker relief even through a § 2255
motion, as Booker is not retroactively applicable to § 2255 cases on collateral
review. Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam),
cert. denied by ___ S. Ct. ___, (No. 05-6041, Oct. 3, 2005). Therefore, the district
court correctly denied Jackson’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3