Pearlie Ingram v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to participate in oral argument [999645346-2]; denying Motion for leave to file [999640015-2], denying Motion for leave to file [999639186-2] Originating case number: 9:14-cv-04771-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999730730]. Mailed to: Ingram. [15-6428]

Appeal: 15-6428

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6428

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Pearlie
dismissing

Lee

his

Ingram

petition

appeals
for

the

writ

of

district
error

court’s

coram

order

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

internal

be

necessary

quotation

marks

or

appropriate.”

omitted)).

We

(alteration

review

for

abuse

and
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
facts

court.

and

legal

We

dispense

contentions

with
are

2

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

Appeal: 15-6428

Doc: 31

materials

before

Filed: 01/06/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3