DOCSLIB.ORG

Bld-109 Not Precedential United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bld-109 Not Precedential United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case: 18-3025 Document: 003113171393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2019 BLD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 12 no a I-OB1041 LESLIE E. THOMAS, Appellant Im UNION COUNTY COURT On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 4-17-cv-00505) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 21, 2019 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 27, 2019) OPINION* PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Case: 18-3025 Document: 003113171393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2019 Leslie Thomas appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed his petition for a writ of error coram nobis for lack of jurisdiction. As we agree that the District Court lacked jurisdiction, we will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment. Following a jury trial in 1995, Thomas was convicted of indecent assault, corruption of a minor, and endangering the welfare of a child. According to Thomas, he was released from prison over 24 years ago, after serving his criminal sentence. Thomas's coram nobis petition alleged that he was wrongly convicted because of errors committed by his attorney and the trial court. He asked the District Court to vacate his conviction and expunge his criminal record. The District Court dismissed Thomas's petition, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief he sought.' Thomas appealed.2 1 Thomas also filed documents in the District Court that were construed as motions to reconsider. The District Court denied those motions. Dkt. #53. Thomas did not appeal from that order, so we do not consider it here. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). 2 We exercise plenary review of a district court's decision to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Management Group, LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 n.5 (3d Cir. 2018). In determining whether the District Court had jurisdiction, we consider the allegations of the petition in the light most favorable to Thomas. See Giovanni v. Dep't of Navy, 906 F.3d 94, 102 (3d Cir. 2018). We may take summary action if an appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 2 Case: 18-3025 Document: 003113171393 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2019 As the District Court properly determined, and as we have informed Thomas previously,3 federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of error coram nobis if the petitioner seeks to vacate a state court conviction. See Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Thomas argues here, as he did in the District Court, that the state court "lost jurisdiction" because of the errors in his trial. Thomas does not support this argument by citation to authority, but even if he were correct, a loss of jurisdiction in state court would not somehow create jurisdiction in federal court. See Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012) ("Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994))). Because the District Court properly dismissed Thomas's petition for lack of jurisdiction, we will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment.4 In 2002, Thomas filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis directly with this Court. We dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See C.A. No. 02-2423 (judgment entered July 24, 2002). We also transferred that petition to the District Court to be construed as a notice of appeal from the District Court's denial of his petition filed under 24 U.S.C. § 2254. We later denied Thomas's application for a certificate of appealability, noting that Thomas had failed to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in ruling that his petition was untimely. See C.A. No. 02-3097. Thomas's motion for appointment of counsel and his other motions are denied. 3 Case: 18-3025 Document: 003113171399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2019 BLD- 109 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 18-3025 LESLIE E. THOMAS, Appellant V. UNION COUNTY COURT On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 4-17-cv-00505) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 21, 2019 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and was submitted for possible summary action pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 on February 21, 2019. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of the District Court entered August 9, 2018, be and the same hereby is affirmed. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Case: 18-3025 Document: 003113171399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2019 ATTEST: sl Patricia S. Dodszuweit Clerk DATED: February 27, 2019 Case 4:17-cv-00505-MEM Document 44 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE E. THOMAS, Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-505 V. : (JUDGE MANNION) UNION COUNTY COURT, Respondent ORDER Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, which recommends that the respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. 43). No objections have been filed to Judge Schwab's report. Upon review, the court will adopt the report and recommendation of Judge Schwab in its entirety. When no objection is made to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465,469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. Case 4:17-cv-00505-MEM Document 44 Filed 08/09/18 Page 2 of 3 §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. On March 23, 2017, the petitioner filed the instant action as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, in which he asks the court to vacate and expunge his 1995 convictions for indecent assault, corruption of a minor, and endangering the welfare of a child. (Doc. 1). An amended petition was filed on April 11, 2017. (Doc. 4). The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 14). In order to be eligible for a writ of error coram nobis following completion of a criminal sentence, a petitioner must have been released from custody, must ask for relief in the court that convicted him, and must demonstrate both exceptional circumstances and continuing collateral disadvantages which justify review. (Doc. 43, p. 5) (citations omitted). In this case, Judge Schwab determined that the plaintiff has not met a key prerequisite for coram nobis, in that he has not petitioned for relief in the court that originally convicted him. Judge Schwab therefore concludes that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the petition. This court finds no clear error of record and agrees with the sound reasoning that led Judge Schwab to her conclusions and will, therefore, adopt Judge Schwab's report in its entirety. 2 Case 4:17-cv-00505-MEM Document 44 Filed 08/09/18 Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The report and recommendation of Judge Schwab, (Doc. 43), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The respondent's motion to dismiss the instant petition, (Doc. 14), is GRANTED. The amended petition for writ of error coram nobis, (Doc. 4), is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. SP1/td4i4 S. /teot MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge Date: August 9, 2018 O:'Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 0RDERS\17-505-01.wpd Case 4:17-cv-00505-MEM Document 43 Filed 07/24/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE E. THOMAS, : CIVIL NO: 4:17-CV-00505 Petitioner, (Judge Mannion) V. (Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab) UNION COUNTY COURT, Respondent. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. Introduction. In this petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Idaho Attorney Post Conviction Manual
    Chapter 15 ' ' ,,: Idaho § 15:1 Summary of postconviction remedies in Idaho § 15:2 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under Idaho Code§§ 19-4901to19-4911 § 15:3 -Text of § 19-4901 § 15:4 --Case law . ·. § 15:5 -Grounds for relief-Newly discovered evidence- Case law · § 15:6 -Text of § 19-4902 § 15:7 - -Filing, Petition § 15:8 --Case law § 15:9 -Summary dismissal-Case law § 15:10 -Statute of limitations § 15:11 --Case law § 15:12 - -Death sentence cases § 15:13 ---Case law '. § 15:14 -Text of§ 19-4903 · § 15:15 -Text of § 19-4904 § 15:16 -Right to counsel-Case law § 15:17 - -Idaho Criminal Rules, Rule 44.2 § 15:18 - - -Text of Idaho Criminal Rules, Rule 44.2 / § 15:19 ---Case law · § 15:20 -Text of§ 19-4905 § 15:21 -Text of § 19-4906 § 15:22 -§ 19-4906-Case law § 15:23 -Text of § 19-4907 § 15:24 -Discovery-Case law § 15:25 -Text of § 19-4908 § 15:26 --Case law § 15:27 -Text of§ 19-4909 § 15:28 ~Text of§ 19-4910 § 15:29 -Text of § 19-4911 § 15:30 -Death s~ntences : · § 15:31 -Custody .requirement § 15:32 -Independent civil action § 15:33 -Appeals § 15:34 --! -Case law ' § 15:35 -Death sentences-Idaho Code § 19-2719 § 15:36 ---Text . 1 STATE PosrooNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND RELIEF § 15:37 ---Case law § 15:38 Writ of habeas corpus under Idaho Code §§ 19-4201 to 19-4226 § 15:39 -Provisions ( § 15:40 -Filing § 15:41 -Civil actions § 15:42 -Discovery § 15:43 -Relief. § 15:44 -Appeals § 15:45 -Text of§ 19~4201.
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Court for Washington County Case No. 21-K-08-042149 UNREPORTED in the COURT of SPECIAL APPEALS of MARYLAND No. 1585
    Circuit Court for Washington County Case No. 21-K-08-042149 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1585 September Term, 2017 MATTHEW CARLOS MOTLEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND Woodward, C.J., Leahy, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Raker, J. Filed: November 16, 2018 *This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104. — Unreported Opinion — _____________________________________________________________________________________ Matthew Carlos Motley was convicted in the Circuit Court for Washington County of a fourth degree sexual offense and contributing to the condition of a child. He presents the following questions for our review: “1. Whether Appellant was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel for sentence modification purposes? 2. Whether the lower court abused its discretion by denying coram nobis relief to Appellant?” We shall hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm. I. On December 29, 2008, the State’s Attorney for Washington County charged appellant by criminal information with second degree rape, distribution of a controlled substance, fourth degree sexual offense, second degree assault, and contributing to the condition of a child. On June 2, 2009, appellant pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Washington County to fourth degree sexual offense and contributing to the condition of a minor. Appellant waived his right to a jury and other rights in a written waiver of rights form which was provided to court and made part of the record.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of New York ------X Charles Spells
    Case 1:11-cv-01680-KAM-PK Document 18 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X CHARLES SPELLS, Petitioner, -against- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WILLIAM LEE, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, 11-CV-1680 (KAM) (JMA) Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------X A P P E A R A N C E S: Charles Spells 05A3857 Green Haven Correctional Facility PO Box 4000 Stormville, NY 12852-4000 Pro Se Petitioner Victor Barall Kings County District Attorney 350 Jay Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Attorney for Respondent AZRACK, United States Magistrate Judge: Pro se petitioner Charles Spells (“petitioner”) filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus against William Lee, the superintendent of the correctional facility where he is incarcerated (“respondent”), seeking relief from his conviction and incarceration by New York state authorities. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner has filed a motion to amend his petition to add new claims, and to stay the petition so that he may exhaust his state remedies for the newly added claims. Pet.’s Mot. to Amend and Stay, ECF No. 15. The Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto has referred petitioner’s motion to me for a Report and Recommendation. Order Referring Case 1:11-cv-01680-KAM-PK Document 18 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: <pageID> Motion, April 13, 2012. For the reasons explained below, I respectfully recommend that the Court deny petitioner’s motion to amend and stay, and allow petitioner to proceed with the exhausted claims in his original petition.
    [Show full text]
  • People V. Lopez
    POINT OF VIEW ONLINE People v. Lopez (2020) __Cal.App.5th __ [2020 WL 1163518] Issue If officers arrest a person for driving under the influence of drugs, does he effectively consent to a blood draw if he does not object when informed that he is required by law to provide a blood sample? Facts An officer in Rocklin stopped Sharon Lopez based on indications she was driving while impaired. When field sobriety tests confirmed the officer’s belief, and a PAS test showed no alcohol whatsoever, the officer concluded that she was under the influence of drugs and arrested her. The officer explained that when they arrived at the police station he told Lopez that “since she was under arrest for a DUI, and since I believed it was a controlled substance DUI, she’s required, by law, to submit to a blood test.” The officer also told her that if she did not consent, he would seek a warrant. Lopez did not refuse to provide a blood sample and fully complied with the instructions she was given by the phlebotomist. Although the court did not know the result of the blood test, it presumably demonstrated that Lopez had been under the influence of drugs, inasmuch as she later filed a motion to suppress it. After her motion was denied, Lopez appealed the court’s ruling to the appellate department of the Placer County Superior Court which ruled it was correct. Lopez appealed these rulings to the Court of Appeal. Discussion The issue in Lopez was when, or under what circumstances, officers can obtain a blood sample from a DUI arrestee.
    [Show full text]
  • WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding Vs
    WHICH COURT IS BINDING?1 Binding vs. Persuasive Cases © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All rights reserved. You have found the perfect case: the facts are similar to yours and the law is on point. But does the court before which you are practicing (or, in law school, the jurisdiction to which you have been assigned) have to follow the case? Stare decisis is the common law principle that requires courts to follow precedents set by other courts. Under stare decisis, courts are obliged to follow some precedents, but not others. Because of the many layers of our federal system, it can be difficult to figure out which decisions bind a given court. This handout is designed to help you determine which decisions are mandatory and which are persuasive on the court before which you are practicing. Binding versus Persuasive Authority: What’s the Difference? • Binding authority, also referred to as mandatory authority, refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. • Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but does not have to follow. To get started, ask yourself two questions: 1) Are the legal issues in your case governed by state or federal law? and 2) Which court are you in? Once you know the answers to these questions, you are well on your way to determining whether a decision is mandatory or persuasive. Step 1: Are the Legal Issues in Your Case Governed by Federal or State Law? First, a lawyer needs to know the facts and issues of the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure--Availability of Coram Nobis in Federal Practice (United States V
    St. John's Law Review Volume 28 Number 2 Volume 28, May 1954, Number 2 Article 12 Criminal Procedure--Availability of Coram Nobis in Federal Practice (United States v. Morgan, 74 Sup. Ct. 247 (1954)) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1954 ] RECENT DECISIONS praisal.14 The trial court, in the instant case, recognizing these prece- ents, intimated that the plaintiff was limited to the statutory remedy.1 5 The principal case, in ruling that equity may intervene in a proper instance,' 6 indicates that New York has now adopted the ma- jority rule. In this, the court has made a wise decision. Since, however, merger and consolidation plans may be just as oppressive to dissenting minority shareholders, this equitable relief should not be limited to sale of corporate assets situations. In the majority of cases, of course, the dissenting stockholder will have a just remedy in appraisal, and the courts should so limit him. Further, as it is the policy of this state to guard against "strike suits," 17 equity should intervene only in the clearest of situations. It may be said, therefore, that this middle of the road policy, when properly applied, seems to be to the best interests of both the ma- jority and minority stockholders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Writ of Error Coram Nobis and the Morgan Footnote Paradox
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1990 United States v. Cooper: The rW it of Error Coram Nobis and the Morgan Footnote Paradox Brendan W. Randall Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Randall, Brendan W., "United States v. Cooper: The rW it of Error Coram Nobis and the Morgan Footnote Paradox" (1990). Minnesota Law Review. 900. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/900 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. United States v. Cooper: The Writ of Error Coram Nobis and the Morgan Footnote Paradox In the federal courts, coram nobis is a post-conviction rem- edy available in the district court to challenge a criminal con- viction;' in certain situations, it is the only relief available 2 to avoid the collateral consequences of a federal conviction.3 United States v. Cooper,4 a recent case before the Fifth Circuit, involved an appeal from a district court order denying what the circuit court construed as petitions for writs of error coram nobis.5 The Cooper court's opinion represents the latest and most developed argument in a twenty-year old dispute among the circuits over the fundamental nature of the writ of error 1. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 510-11 (1954); United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Court-Appointed Counsel Page 2-1
    COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES MANUAL GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL PAGE 2-1 - Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Court-Appointed Counsel Statutory Provisions on The Right to Counsel Statutory procedures on the right to representation by a lawyer and appointment of counsel for indigents are found in Va. Code §§ 16.1-266, 16.1-267, 16.1-268 and Va. Code §§ 19.2-157, 19.2-158, 19.2-159, 19.2-160, 19.2-161, 19.2-162 and 19.2-163. A person appearing in court has the right to legal representation and may obtain his/her own counsel. The accused may also waive his/her right to legal representation. The right to be represented by a court- appointed attorney is restricted by law to individuals who are indigent and charged with an offense punishable by incarceration, or adults who may be subjected to loss of parental rights by court order. An indigent is defined as a person who requests legal counsel but is unable to provide for full payment of a lawyer's fee without causing undue financial hardship to himself or his family. The court is not required to appoint counsel in instances where the accused is charged with a non-jailable misdemeanor or, if charged with a jailable misdemeanor, where the judge has declared in writing prior to trial that any sentence upon conviction will not include imprisonment. The appointment of counsel in cases involving children is handled differently according to the type of case. In abuse, neglect, termination of parental rights cases, and entrustment agreement proceedings, a lawyer who serves as a guardian ad litem must be appointed pursuant to Va.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Instructions for Filing a Petition for Review with The
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT There are only three grounds for review of the Court of Appeal decision by the California Supreme Court. These are contained in California Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b). These are: 1. Where it appears necessary to secure uniformity of decision or the settlement of important issues of law; 2. Where the court of appeal was without jurisdiction of the case; or 3. Where, because of disqualification or other reasons, the decision of the court of appeal lacks the concurrence of the required majority of qualified judges. In all probability, your case will come under reason 1. Numbers 2 and 3 almost never occur. Put your name, address and a contact telephone number on a white colored cover. Sample copies of a cover are included in the briefs which I have sent you only they are a green or brown color. Your petition for review need not be an elaborate document. It should be titled “Petition for Review of Court of Appeal decision [insert case number].” Your petition must contain, at the beginning of the petition, the case number and date of the Court of Appeal decision, a statement of the issues presented, in concise, non-argumentative form. It must also contain a short statement of the facts as they are shown in the record, and statement of why the legal issue is important enough to deserve review by the California Supreme Court under the standards listed above. This usually means a discussion of whether an important question of law is involved, or whether review is necessary to obtain uniformity of decisional law.
    [Show full text]
  • DCA-109A, Guide to Appeal Fees
    GUIDE TO APPEAL FEES Note: The trial date is not included when counting days. There is one fee for consolidated cases. # OF DAYS TO APPEAL TYPE APPEAL FEE FILE APPEAL Criminal, Serious Traffic Citations, Routine (Minor) Traffic Citations, $80.00 payable to Circuit Court 30 Days DNR Citations, MTA Citations (Appeal bond may be set by judge) CV Citations - Marijuana Under 10 Grams, Smoking Marijuana in a Public Place; Betting, Wagering, or Gambling/Gaming Device or Fraudulent Trick; Consuming Alcohol in Public, Possessing an Open Container; $10.00 payable to District Court 30 Days Parking, Red Light Camera, Speed Camera Monitoring, School Bus, $165.00 payable to Circuit Court Electronic Toll, Vehicle Height Monitoring, and Zoning Citations Denial of Application for Expungement, Petition for Second Chance $10.00 payable to District Court 30 Days Shielding $115.00 payable to Circuit Court $10.00 payable to District Court Denial of Petition to Strike Forfeiture 30 Days $165.00 payable to Circuit Court Grant or Denial of Motion by a Judge (most rulings of this type are not $10.00 payable to District Court 30 Days appealable unless a final judgment has been entered.) $165.00 payable to Circuit Court SMALL CLAIM (De novo Appeal): $10.00 payable to District Court 30 Days • Civil cases $5000 and under (Amount of claim not the judgment amount) $165.00 payable to Circuit Court LARGE CLAIM (On the Record Appeal): Filing date prior to October 1, 2003: $10.00 payable to District Court • Civil Cases $2500.01 and over (Amount of claim not the judgment
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner Initially Filed This Coram Nobis Petition in United States V
    Case 3:08-cv-00039-M Document 12 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 4 PageID 63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LARRY B. FRASIER, ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) 3:08-CV-0039-M ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Respondent. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the Court in implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed by a person previously convicted and sentenced in this court.1 Parties: Petitioner presently resides in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent is the United States of America. The court has not issued process in this case, pending preliminary screening. On February 7, 2008, the magistrate judge issued a questionnaire. On February 22, 2008, Petitioner 1 Petitioner initially filed this coram nobis petition in United States v. Frasier, 3:01-CR-075-M (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div., Dec. 17, 2007). On January 8, 2008, the magistrate judge ordered the clerk to docket the petition as a new civil action because Petitioner had fully served his sentence in No. 3:01-CR-075-M. Petitioner subsequently paid the $5.00 filing fee. Case 3:08-cv-00039-M Document 12 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 4 PageID 64 filed an objection to the referral of this case to the magistrate judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal General Procedures
    GENERAL APPEAL PROCEDURES Once a final judgment, or other appealable order or decree has been entered by a circuit court, either party to a case, plaintiff, or defendant, may seek appellate review of such judgment, decree or order. The two tribunals which have appellate jurisdiction to review final judgments are the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Perfecting an appeal refers to the legal process by which an appeal is taken to a higher court. The procedures relating to appeals to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court Volume 11 Parts 5 & 5A. Notice of Appeal must be filed in writing in the Clerk's office within thirty (30) calendar days of the entry date of a final judgment or other appealable order. The Notice of Appeal must reflect the date of the Order being appealed and to which Court (Court of Appeals or Supreme Court) the case is being appealed. FILING FEES: Filing fee must be submitted at the time of filing of the “Notice of Appeal” in all civil cases. $32.00 filing fee - Civil cases $ .00 filing fee - Criminal cases The Court will accept cash, credit card (with a 4% surcharge fee), certified check or a money order, made payable to: Clerk of the Circuit Court 4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Attn: Court of Appeals Processing Clerk Or Attn: Supreme Court Appeals Processing Clerk NO PERSONAL CHECKS WILL BE ACCEPTED REFERENCE: Code of Virginia: Section 8.01-670 Section 17.1-405 - 17.1-408 Rules of the Supreme Court Volume 11 Parts 5 & 5A CCR A-15a Rev: February 2018 Once a Notice of Appeal is filed, the Circuit Court clerk is responsible for preparing the record on appeal and transmitting it to the designated Appellate Court within 90 days.
    [Show full text]