United States of America v. Salomon S. Loayza

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-7191
SALOMON S. LOAYZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-95-11, CA-98-69-4)
Submitted: December 22, 1999
Decided: January 10, 2000
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Salomon S. Loayza, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Mark Salsbury, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Salomon Loayza appeals the district court's order denying his
request for collateral relief from his criminal conviction for mail
fraud. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error. However, we disagree with the district
court's reasoning that Loayza's complaint should be construed as
demanding a writ of coram nobis. Rather, Loayza's complaint is prop-
erly before the courts as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 1999) because he filed the motion while still incarcerated
for the conviction currently challenged, see Carafas v. LaVallee, 391
U.S. 234, 238 (1968), and because the conditions of supervised
release to which Loayza is currently subject are sufficient to satisfy
the "custody" requirement. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236,
243 (1963). Nevertheless, for the reasons stated by the district court,
we agree that Loayza is not entitled to collateral relief.
Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal based sub-
stantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.
Loayza, Nos. CR-95-11; CA-98-69-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 1999).* We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
*To the extent that Loayza raises new arguments on appeal, we decline
to address them. See Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222,
1227 (4th Cir. 1998).
2

-- 2 of 2 --