Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert DALEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Robert Daley appeals the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.
Federal courts are authorized to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012); Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2013). “The writ is narrowly limited to extraordinary cases presenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice.” United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 decision to deny the writ because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sound reasons for the delay for abuse of discretion. Bereano, 706 F.3d at 575; Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1996).
To obtain coram nobis relief, the petitioner must satisfy the following four prerequisites:
First, a more usual remedy (such as habeas corpus) must be unavailable; second, there must be a valid basis for the petitioner having not earlier attacked his convictions; third, the consequences flowing to the petitioner from his convictions must be sufficiently adverse to satisfy Article III's case or controversy requirement; and, finally, the error that is shown must be of the most fundamental character.
Bereano, 706 F.3d at 576 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Daley failed to show sound reasons for delay in seeking coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1658
Decided: March 27, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)