United States of America v. Reginald Reaves

APS-173 UNREPORTED - NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5040
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REGINALD REAVES,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-05033)
District Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz
__________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 23, 2006
BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: April 13, 2006)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Reginald Reaves was convicted of various drug-related crimes following a jury
trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We
affirmed in United States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711 (3d Cir. 1994). Since then Reaves has

-- 1 of 3 --

2
unsuccessfully attacked his conviction and sentence through a series of collateral
challenges under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2241, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the All Writs
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (specifically, the ancient writs of error coram nobis and audita
querela).
In 2005 Reaves filed another attack on his sentence via a petition for a writ of
audita 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
under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because it clearly appears that no
substantial question is presented by this appeal.
A motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means
to challenge collaterally a federal conviction or sentence. The All Writs Act is a residual
source of authority to issue writs in exceptional circumstances only. Pennsylvania Bureau
of Correction v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). In United States v. Valdez-
Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held,
and we agree, that “[a] prisoner may not circumvent valid congressional limitations on
collateral attacks by asserting that those very limitations create a gap in the postconviction
remedies that must be filled by the common law writs” such as audita querela. Id. at
1080. Thus, we have held that section 2255 is not rendered “inadequate or ineffective,”
thereby enabling a prisoner to resort to coram nobis, by the mere fact that he cannot meet
the stringent standards for authorizing the filing of a second or successive section 2255

-- 2 of 3 --

We note that even if audita querela were otherwise available, Reaves would not be1
able to rely on Booker because that decision does not apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review. See Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608 (3d Cir. 2005); In re
Olopade, 403 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2005).
motion. United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The
same applies to petitions for a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d
1172, 1175 (11 Cir. 2005) (writ of audita querela unavailable where relief is cognizableth
under section 2255).1
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --