US v. Collier Sessom

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to extend filing time [998940639-2] Originating case number: 7:06-cr-00063-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998981756]. Mailed to: C. Sessoms. [12-7316]

Appeal: 12-7316

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/15/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COLLIER DOUGLAS SESSOMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00063-BR-1)

Submitted:

November 13, 2012

Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Collier Douglas Sessoms, Appellant Pro Se.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Carolina, for Appellee.

Jennifer P.
Raleigh, North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7316

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/15/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Collier Douglas Sessoms, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order dismissing his self-styled “Motion
for [a] Writ of Coram Nobis,” which the court construed as a
petition for a writ of audita querela brought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a) (2006). *

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A writ of error coram nobis may be used to vacate a
conviction

where

there

is

a

fundamental

error

resulting

conviction, and no other means of relief is available.

in

United

States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-11 (1954); United States v.
Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012).
limited, however,

to

those

petitioners

custody

to

their

convictions.

pursuant

who

are

The remedy is
no

Carlisle

longer
v.

in

United

States, 517 U.S. 416, 428-29 (1996); Akinsade, 686 F.3d at 252.

*

“Writs of audita querela and coram nobis are similar, but
not identical.”
United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245
n.6 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Usually, a writ of coram nobis is used to attack a judgment
that was infirm at the time it issued, for reasons that later
came to light.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted).
A writ of audita querela, by contrast, “is used to
challenge a judgment that was correct at the time rendered but
which is rendered infirm by matters which arise after its
rendition.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sessoms’
petition,
which
challenges
his
convictions
and
sentence
following his guilty plea to transmission of child pornography
and transportation of obscene matters over the Internet, appears
to seek relief in the form of writs of error coram nobis and
audita querela.

2

Appeal: 12-7316

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/15/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

Further, a writ of audita querela is not available to
a petitioner when other avenues of relief are available, such as
a

motion

vacate

under

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255

(West

Supp.

Torres, 282 F.3d at 1245; United States v. Johnson, 962

2012).
F.2d

to

579,

582

(7th

Cir.

1992).

That

a

petitioner

may

not

proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this
court does not alter this conclusion.

See Carrington v. United

States,

2007)

503

F.3d

888,

890

(9th

Cir.

(“[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.”).
Sessoms

is

currently

in

custody

pursuant

to

his

convictions, and he previously challenged his convictions and
sentence

in

a

§ 2255

motion.

Although

Sessoms’

present

challenges were not raised in his § 2255 motion, he has not
sought

authorization

from

successive § 2255 motion.

this

court

to

file

a

second

or

As Sessoms fails to establish the

grounds needed to obtain relief under either writ, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.

We deny Sessoms’ motion to extend

the filing time for new evidence and 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
3