William Keith Schanck v. United States

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-13215 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 23, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 92-00135-CR-T-27-TGW
WILLIAM KEITH SCHANCK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 23, 2010)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Keith Schanck, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of
his petition for a writ of audita querela under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
The district court construed Schanck’s petition as a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. §
2255, and denied the motion as successive. We affirm.
Schanck was convicted of four drug crimes and was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. This Court affirmed his convictions. United States v.
Schanck, No. 95-2179 (11th Cir. July 15, 1997). Schanck later moved to vacate
his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied. Schanck requested
a certificate of appealability, which both the district court and this Court denied.
Schanck petitioned for a writ of audita querela. Schanck argued that his
sentence of life imprisonment was unconstitutional under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the petition.
The district court did not err by dismissing Schanck’s petition. Because
Schanck “is collaterally attacking his sentence as violating the United States
Constitution, the proper avenue of relief is [section] 2255.” United States v. Holt,
417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005). Schanck previously filed a motion to vacate
and failed to obtain permission from this Court to file a successive motion. 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). “Without authorization, the district court
lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider [Schanck’s] second or successive petition.” Farris
v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
The dismissal of Schanck’s petition for a writ of audita querela is
AFFIRMED.
3