UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. COBB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JIMMY COBB, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO. 4:17-CR-51-CDL-AGH
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
_________________________________
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for a writ of coram nobis (ECF No.
133). Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to compel a response to his motion (ECF
No. 134) and a motion for a status conference (ECF No. 135). As explained below, it
is recommended that Petitioner’s motion for a writ of coram nobis be denied.
Consequently, Petitioner’s motions seeking a response to and a hearing on his motion
are denied.
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2018, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the use of facilities in interstate
and foreign commerce to transmit information about a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2425. Superseding Information 1, ECF No. 33; Plea Sheet, ECF No. 35 On July 17,
2018, Petitioner was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment and 5 years of supervised
release. J. 1-3, ECF No. 54.
On 	November 26, 2018, Petitioner moved to 	vacate 	his 	sentence 	under
28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF No. 59). 	The Court denied the motion on July 15, 2020. Order
Case 4:17-cr-00051-CDL-AGH Document 138 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 5

2
& 	R. 	4-21, 	Apr. 	30, 	2020, 	ECF 	No. 	104; 	Order, 	ECF 	No. 	106 	(adopting
recommendation). 	Petitioner filed an appeal (ECF No. 108) on August 4, 2020.
However, Petitioner was denied a certificate of appealability by the Eleventh Circuit
(ECF No. 113) and a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court (ECF
No. 114).
On April 12, 2022, the Court received Petitioner’s second pro se motion to
vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 115). 	On June 13, 2022, the
Government 	moved to 	dismiss 	Petitioner’s 	second motion 	as 	successive 	under
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (ECF No. 117). On June 29, 2022, the Court received Petitioner’s
response (ECF No. 118). The Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss on
October 17, 2022. 	R. & R. 2-4, July 27, 2022, ECF No. 119; Order, ECF No. 121
(adopting recommendation). 	Petitioner again appealed (ECF No. 123), and the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed on February 7, 2024 (ECF No. 130).
Petitioner was released from custody and began his supervision in January
2020. 	He consequently should have completed his five years of supervision in
January 2025.1 On May 19, 2025, Petitioner filed what he titled a motion for a writ
of coram nobis (ECF No. 133). 	A closer look, however, shows that while titled as a
writ of coram nobis, Petitioner is seeking the same relief based on the same grounds
as in his prior motions to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 	Thus,
Petitioner cannot proceed on a writ of coram nobis, and it is recommended that his
1 The Court assumes that Petitioner is no longer in custody for purposes of his current ability to file a
motion for a writ of coram nobis. See, e.g., Ramdeo v. United States, 136 F.4th 1348, 1351 (11th Cir.
2025) (“[C]oram nobis relief is unavailable to an in-custody prisoner who seeks release from custody.”).
Case 4:17-cr-00051-CDL-AGH Document 138 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 5

3
motion be denied.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner requests coram nobis relief. 	“A petition for a writ of coram nobis
provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person . . . who is no
longer ‘in custody’ and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or
§ 2241.” Hatten v. United States, 787 F. App’x 589, 590 (11th Cir. 2019) (ellipses in
original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 	This extraordinary writ
can be used to correct technical, factual, and legal errors, “[b]ut the standard for relief
is high.” 	Ramdeo v. United States, 136 F.4th 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2025). 	“In fact,
review is allowed through this extraordinary remedy only under circumstance
compelling such action to achieve justice.” Id. at 1352 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); see also Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir.
2000) (“[T]he writ may issue only when the error involves a matter of fact of the most
fundamental character which has not been put in issue or passed upon and which
renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)). However, coram nobis “may not issue when alternative remedies,
such as habeas corpus, are available.” Ramdeo, 136 F.4th at 1352 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). 	Thus, “the writ is appropriate only when there is and
was no other available avenue of relief.” Alkhani, 200 F.3d at 734.
Here, Petitioner seeks relief that is essentially another motion to vacate under
§ 2255. 	He has not identified any extraordinary issues in his case that were not or
could not have been previously addressed in his prior motions to vacate and appeals.
Case 4:17-cr-00051-CDL-AGH Document 138 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 5

4
To the contrary, Petitioner cites to the standards for a motion to vacate, raises claims
concerning his actual innocence that were previously asserted in his original motion
to vacate, and avers that he “has argued these same points since the inception of his
case.” Writ of Coram Nobis 1, 21; see also, e.g., Pet’r’s Traverse 6, ECF No. 67 (“The
Government failed to address the Petitioner’s assertion of Legal innocence of violating
§ 2425.”). Further, although he states three grounds for relief—“a substantive change
in the law”,2 actual innocence, and miscarriage of justice—each of these grounds
relates 	to 	his 	already 	litigated 	claim 	that 	he 	entered 	his 	guilty 	plea 	with 	a
“misunderstanding of the elements of the charged offense.” Not. of Suppl. Authority
1, ECF No. 136; Writ of Coram Nobis 3; Pet’r’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Vacate 1 (stating
grounds for relief), ECF No. 59-1. Petitioner cannot seek such relief through a writ
of coram nobis because habeas relief was available to him, Ramdeo, 136 F.4th at 1353,
and he exercised the right to seek that relief more than once. Hatten, 787 F. App’x at
591 (“A petition for a writ of coram nobis does not provide [petitioner] an opportunity
to reassert failed claims or to bring claims he neglected to bring in available
2 It appears that Petitioner may be attempting to claim that United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762
(2023), announced a new rule of constitutional law that has been made retroactive by the Supreme
Court. Hansen is a statutory construction case in which the Supreme Court construes the “encourages
or induces” language of an immigration statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1324, and finds that the statute is not
overbroad under the First Amendment. 599 U.S. at 770-82. Specifically, the Court held that clause
(iv) of § 1324 “uses ‘encourages or induces’ in its specialized, criminal-law sense—that is, as
incorporating common-law liability for solicitation and facilitation.” 	Id. at 774. 	But contrary to
Petitioner’s belief that this is a new interpretation of these terms, the Supreme Court explained that
“‘[e]ncourage’ and ‘induce’ have well-established legal meanings—and when Congress ‘borrows terms
of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably
knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word.’” Id. at 774 (quoting
Morrissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952)). In other words, the Court in Hansen applied
the well-known and well-established meanings of the terms “encourage” and “induce” to § 1324. In
doing so, it did not create a new rule of constitutional law, especially not one related to a statute not
mentioned in the case at all, 18 U.S.C. § 2425.
Case 4:17-cr-00051-CDL-AGH Document 138 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 5

proceedings.”). 	Consequently, Petitioner’s motion for a writ of coram nobis
should be denied.
CONCLUSION
As explained above, it is recommended that Petitioner’s motion for a writ of
coram nobis (ECF No. 133) be denied. 	Since it is recommended that Petitioner’s
motion be denied, Petitioner’s motion to compel a response to the motion (ECF No.
134) and for a status conference (ECF No. 135) on the motion are denied. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Petitioner may serve and file written objections to this
Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within fourteen (14)
days after being served with a copy hereof. 	Any objection should be no longer than
twenty (20) pages in length. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The district judge shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is
made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
Petitioner is hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a]
party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained
in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time
period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. 	In the
absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error
if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO ORDERED and RECOMMENDED, this 30th day of January, 2026.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:17-cr-00051-CDL-AGH Document 138 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 5