IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-10288
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN DARWIN EADS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CV-368-E
_________________________________________________________________
January 13, 1997
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Eads (# 95443-131) has appealed the district court’s
denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and coram nobis relief relative to his
conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). He has served
his sentence for this offense, but he contends that the conviction
has adversely affected the federal bank robbery sentence that he is
now serving and that it has other adverse consequences.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
This action actually is one for § 2255 relief from the
sentence for the bank robbery conviction. See Meleng v. Cook, 490
U.S. 488, 491-94 (1989). The district court did not err in denying
§ 2255 relief because Eads failed to show that his bank robbery
sentence was adversely affected by the prior conviction. See
Hendrix v. Lynaugh, 888 F.2d 336, 337-38 (5th Cir. 1980) (28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas corpus case). Eads is not entitled to corum nobis
relief relative to the § 1202(a) conviction because, even were that
conviction declared invalid, it would have no effect on his current
sentence. The enhancement of his bank robbery sentence was based
on his committing that offense while released on bond for his §
1202(a) offense, not for the conviction itself. Eads has not shown
that he is “suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the {§
1202(a)] conviction[].” See United States v. Castro, 26 F.3d 557,
559 (5th Cir. 1994). For these reasons, the district court’s
denial of relief is
A F F I R M E D.
-2-