United States v. Gibson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6764
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals the district court’s
denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. “[A] writ of
audita querela is not available to a petitioner when other
remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate sentence under 28
U.S.C.[A.] § 2255 [(West Supp. 2010)].” United States v.
Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation
marks omitted); United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077,
1079 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). The fact that Gibson cannot
proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this
court to file a successive motion does not alter this
conclusion. See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890
(9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he statutory limits on second or successive
habeas petitions do not create a ‘gap’ in the post-conviction
landscape that can be filled with the common law writs.”),
amended on other grounds by 530 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2