USA v. James Putnam

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60165 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 06/09/2017; denying motion to dismiss appeal filed by Appellee USA [8206514-2]; denying motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8206514-3] [16-60165]

Case: 16-60165

Document: 00513957589

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60165
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit

FILED
April 18, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

JAMES FRANKLIN PUTNAM, also known as Tony Martinez, also known as
Bobby Spiers, also known as Bob Watson,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:97-CR-3-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
James Franklin Putnam appeals the district court’s denial of his petition
for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Putnam has
completed his term of imprisonment but is still serving the five-year term of
supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction of hostage
taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 16-60165

Document: 00513957589

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

No. 16-60165
At all times, this court must be assured of its jurisdiction and the district
court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
Because Putnam is still subject to an unexpired term of supervised release, he
is “in custody” and ineligible for coram nobis relief. See United States v.
Scruggs, 691 F.3d 660, 662 n.1 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Esogbue, 357
F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Putnam is challenging his federal
conviction, the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). The
district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to do so because Putnam previously
filed a § 2255 motion, and this court did not authorize the filing of a successive
§ 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999); 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED
on the alternative ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider
Putnam’s petition. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
All pending motions are DENIED.

2