United States of America v. John M. Humphries

BLD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4528
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN M. HUMPHRIES,
Appellant
___________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 96-cr-00108)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 28, 2010
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 24, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
John Humphries, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying his petition for a writ of error
coram nobis and motion for transcripts. We will affirm the District Court’s order.

-- 1 of 4 --

1
In 1996, Humphries pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute oxycodone. He was sentenced to a term of 92 months in
prison and 36 months of supervised release. Humphries did not file a direct appeal.
Humphries was released from federal custody in 2002.
In 2009, Humphries challenged his conviction and sentence under the All Writs
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, by filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in District
Court. Humphries claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things,
instructing him to make a deal with the prosecution that was not included in his plea
agreement. He also claimed that the trial court erred by accepting his plea and failing to
hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his plea. Humphries further claimed
that there was insufficient evidence supporting the factual basis for his plea and that his
due process rights were violated. Humphries also filed a motion seeking the transcripts
from his criminal proceedings. The District Court denied Humphries’ coram nobis
petition and denied his motion for transcripts as moot. This appeal followed.
As recognized by the District Court, “coram nobis has traditionally been used to
attack convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer ‘in
custody’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189
(3d Cir. 2000). It is an extraordinary remedy and a court’s jurisdiction to grant relief is of
limited scope. Id. Use of the writ is appropriate to correct errors for which there was no
remedy available at the time of trial and where valid reasons exist for failing to seek relief

-- 2 of 4 --

Based on these conclusions, we need not address the District Court’s additional1
finding that Humphries failed to show that he is suffering from continuing consequences
from his conviction. We assume without deciding that Humphries continues to suffer
adverse consequences even though he is no longer in custody.
2
sooner. United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 1989). In addition, the
error must go to the jurisdiction of the trial court and render the criminal proceedings
invalid. Id.
We agree with the District Court that Humphries did not establish valid reasons for
failing to seek relief sooner. The facts supporting Humphries’ claims were known during
his criminal proceedings, but Humphries did not file a direct appeal and it appears he did
not file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Humphries had remedies
available at the time of his conviction, coram nobis relief is unavailable. See also United
States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1061-62 (3d Cir. 1988) (concluding issue raised in coram
nobis petition that could have been raised on direct appeal was waived). We also agree
with the District Court that the errors that Humphries alleges are not of a fundamental
character as they primarily challenge the voluntariness of his plea and do not implicate the
trial court’s jurisdiction. Although Humphries argues that he would be able to establish1
that constitutional violations occurred in his case if the District Court had granted his
motion for transcripts, the District Court did not err in denying Humphries’ motion where
coram nobis relief was properly denied.
Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will

-- 3 of 4 --

affirm the District Court’s order.

-- 4 of 4 --