Pearlie Ingram v. United States

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6428
PEARLIE INGRAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (9:14-cv-04771-CMC)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pearlie Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pearlie Lee Ingram appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We
affirm.
A writ of error coram nobis can be used to vacate a
conviction when a fundamental error resulted in conviction and
no other means of relief is available. United States v. Denedo,
556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009); United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d
248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). But see Carlisle v. United States,
517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a
situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram
nobis would be necessary or appropriate.” (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted)). We review for abuse of
discretion the district court’s decision to deny coram nobis
relief. Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir.
2013).
Applying these standards, we conclude that the district
court did not err in denying Ingram’s petition for writ of coram
nobis. Accordingly, we deny Ingram’s motions to consider new
evidence and for oral argument and affirm the judgment of the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3