US v. James Collins, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-01295-CMC-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000339385]. Mailed to: James Morrow Collins Jr.. [18-6569]

Download PDF
Appeal: 18-6569 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2018 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6569 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES MORROW COLLINS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-01295-CMC-2) Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Morrow Collins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 18-6569 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2018 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: James Morrow Collins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Collins maintained in his petition—filed in January 2018—that his prosecution in 2009 and 2010 * was based on “political revenge, corruption, extortion, civil rights violations, bigotry[,] and intolerance of powerful government officials” and that his political enemies conspired with others and paid law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute him due to ideological differences. We affirm. On appeal from the district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we review factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for an abuse of discretion. Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 2013). Further, we may affirm on any ground apparent in the record. United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015). * Following a jury trial, Collins was convicted in May 2010 of conspiracy to violate the Animal Welfare Act and to engage in an illegal gambling business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), two counts of participation in an unlawful animal fighting venture, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2156 (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012), and two counts of operating an illegal gambling business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1955 (2012). He was sentenced to 21 months in prison. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the conspiracy and gambling convictions, vacated the animal fighting convictions, and remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 656 (4th Cir. 2012). On remand in 2012, the animal fighting charges were dismissed, and Collins was resentenced to 21 months in prison. Collins appealed this sentence, and this court affirmed. United States v. Collins, 550 F. App’x 143, 148 (4th Cir. 2014) (No. 12-4940). 2 Appeal: 18-6569 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2018 Pg: 3 of 4 Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that is available only under circumstances compelling relief in order to achieve justice. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512-13 (1954). To obtain coram nobis relief, the petitioner must satisfy “four essential prerequisites.” Bereano, 706 F.3d at 576. First, “a more usual remedy (such as habeas corpus) must be unavailable.” Id. Second, there must be a “valid basis” for the petitioner having not attacked his convictions earlier. Id. Third, “the consequences flowing to the petitioner from his convictions must be sufficiently adverse to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.” Id. Fourth and finally, “the error that is shown must be of the most fundamental character.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude after review of the record that Collins’ coram nobis effort fails because he has not shown that valid reasons exist for not attacking his convictions earlier. Although there is no firm limitation of time within which a writ of error coram nobis will lie, a petitioner seeking such relief is required to demonstrate that “sound reasons exist[] for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief.” Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512. Collins could have challenged the propriety of his prosecution on the bases alleged in his petition in the trial proceedings, on direct appeal, or in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to vacate but did not do so. Collins’ petition relies on events allegedly occurring and documents dated no later than 2010. He does not explain, however, why he brought his challenges in the coram nobis petition over seven years later. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Collins’ petition. United States v. Collins, No. 3:09-cr-01295-CMC-2 (D.S.C. May 2, 2018). We dispense with 3 Appeal: 18-6569 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2018 Pg: 4 of 4 oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?