Reaves v. USA, (3rd Cir. 2006)

Text

---

APS-173 U N R E P O R T E D - NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT

N O . 05-5040

U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA

v. R E G IN A L D REAVES,

A p p e lla n t

O n Appeal From the United States District Court

F o r the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-05033)

D istric t Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz

S u b m itte d Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

M a rc h 23, 2006

B E F O R E : SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed: April 13, 2006)

O P IN IO N

P E R CURIAM

R eg in ald Reaves was convicted of various drug-related crimes following a jury

tria l in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We

a f f irm e d in United States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711 (3d Cir. 1994). Since then Reaves has

u n s u c c es s f u lly attacked his conviction and sentence through a series of collateral c h a llen g e s under 28U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2241, 18U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the All Writs A c t, 28U.S.C. § 1651 (specifically, the ancient writs of error coram nobis and audita q u e re la ).

In 2005 Reaves filed another attack on his sentence via a petition for a writ of a u d ita querela, seeking relief pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Reeves has appealed the District Court's denial of his petition. We will summarily affirm u n d e r Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because it clearly appears that no s u b s ta n tia l question is presented by this appeal.

A motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means to challenge collaterally a federal conviction or sentence. The All Writs Act is a residual s o u rc e of authority to issue writs in exceptional circumstances only. Pennsylvania Bureau o f Correction v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). In United States v. ValdezP a c h e co , 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, a n d we agree, that "[a] prisoner may not circumvent valid congressional limitations on c o lla te ra l attacks by asserting that those very limitations create a gap in the postconviction r e m e d i e s that must be filled by the common law writs" such as audita querela. Id. at 1 0 8 0 . Thus, we have held that section 2255 is not rendered "inadequate or ineffective," th e re b y enabling a prisoner to resort to coram nobis, by the mere fact that he cannot meet th e stringent standards for authorizing the filing of a second or successive section 2255 m o tio n . United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The s a m e applies to petitions for a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1 1 7 2 , 1175 (11 th Cir. 2005) (writ of audita querela unavailable where relief is cognizable u n d er section 2255).1 A c c o rd in g ly, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

1 We note that even if audita querela were otherwise available, Reaves would not be a b le to rely on Booker because that decision does not apply retroactively to cases on co llateral review. See Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608 (3d Cir. 2005); In re O lop ad e, 403 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2005).

---