HLD-80 PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-4077
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GARY RHINES, a/k/a DERRICK UPSHAW,
a/k/a GARY R. ALLEN, a/k/a ROBERY CAMBY,
Gary Rhines,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00310)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 31, 2011
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 4, 2011)
___________________________________
Mr. Gary Rhines
Canaan USP
P.O. Box 300
Waymart, PA 18472
Pro Se Appellant
Stephen R. Cerutti, II, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
1
228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754
220 Federal Building and Courthouse
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Theodore B. Smith, III, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754
220 Federal Building and Courthouse
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Counsel for Appellee
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Gary Rhines, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s
order dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Because the appeal does not
present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
I.
Rhines was convicted of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams of
cocaine base and was sentenced to life in prison. We affirmed the conviction and
sentence, see United States v. Rhines, 143 F. App’x 478 (3d Cir. 2005), and the United
States Supreme Court denied certiorari, see Rhines v. United States, 546 U.S. 1210
(2006). Since then, Rhines has continued to challenge his conviction and sentence. His
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied in 2007, and we denied a certificate of
appealability. In 2010, we denied Rhines’ application to file a second or successive
§2255 motion (C.A. No. 10-2438), as well as a mandamus petition seeking the dismissal
2
of his indictment (C.A. No. 10-2990).
Rhines filed a “Motion to Amend Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(A) Writ of
Coram Nobis under the All Writs Act,” along with a petition for a writ of error coram
nobis in the District Court in August 2010. He claimed that two police officers involved
in his case fabricated evidence against him and gave perjured testimony. He based his
claim on news reports that the officers were indicted in 2007 on charges related to the
handling of property seized by the local drug task force, including tampering with public
records and perjury. Rhines contended that the prosecution “suppressed” the pending
criminal cases against the officers, which would have “exculpated” him, and that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to discover that these officers were under indictment.
The District Court dismissed Rhines’ petition because he presented no basis for
extraordinary relief, holding that coram nobis relief is not available to a petitioner who
remains in custody and that the error Rhines complained of was not of the type within the
ambit of the writ.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo legal issues arising from the denial of coram nobis relief. See, e.g.,
United States v. Johnson, 237 F.3d 751, 755 (6th Cir. 2001). If no substantial question is
presented by this appeal, we may summarily affirm the District Court’s order on any
ground supported by the record. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; IOP 10.6; Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
3
Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that “has traditionally been used to
attack [federal] 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) (per curiam). A court’s jurisdiction to grant such relief is of
limited scope, and the standard for obtaining it is more stringent than that applicable on
direct appeal or in habeas corpus. See United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 106 (3d
Cir. 1989). Errors which could be remedied by a new trial do not usually come within
the writ. Id. Rather, the error must be fundamental and “go to the jurisdiction of the trial
court, thus rendering the trial itself invalid.” Id. When an alternative remedy is
available, a writ of error coram nobis may not issue. See United States v. Denedo, 129
S.Ct. 2213, 2220 (2009).
We agree that Rhines is not entitled to coram nobis relief. First, Rhines is
still in prison, whereas coram nobis is usually reserved for situations where the petitioner
is no longer serving his sentence or “in custody.” See Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189. Rhines
contends that being “in custody” is not a “categorical preclusion” to coram nobis, relying
on two decisions where coram nobis relief was granted to prisoners. See United States v.
Dawes, 895 F.2d 1581 (10th Cir. 1990); Bruce v. Ebert, No. 10-cv-00269, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 112782 (W.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2010).1 These decisions are not binding upon us
1
We also note that coram nobis relief was granted in Bruce v. Ebert on account of
unique circumstances not present in Rhines’ case. Bruce filed a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district court for the district in which he was
incarcerated (M.D. Pa.). That court transferred the habeas petition to the district court
4
and have no bearing upon the standard in this Circuit that writs of error coram nobis are
generally not available to those “in custody.” See, e.g., Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 105-06.
We also agree that Rhines has not asserted a fundamental error that
rendered his trial invalid. He claims that he was denied the opportunity to impeach the
officers with the fact of their indictment and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
discover this. The officers were indicted about five years after Rhines’ trial and, to the
extent we can discern from the material Rhines submitted, for actions apparently
unrelated to Rhines’ case. Rhines has offered nothing but speculation that the 2007
charges against the officers prove that they fabricated evidence and gave perjured
testimony at his trial or that impeachment would have resulted in a “not guilty” verdict
despite the other evidence against him. Furthermore, we note that Rhines has already
attempted to raise these claims in a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which we
denied him authorization to file (C.A. 10-2438). Rhines may not resort to a writ of error
coram nobis simply because he cannot meet the standards for filing a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189-90.
There being no substantial question presented by Rhines’ appeal, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; IOP 10.6.
that sentenced him (W.D. Va.) because Bruce was challenging the validity of his
conviction. The sentencing court concluded that Bruce was entitled to § 2241 relief for
one of his convictions, but the court could not grant the relief pursuant to § 2241 because
the warden of the prison in which Bruce was incarcerated was outside the jurisdiction of
the court. The court therefore resorted to a writ of error coram nobis to grant Bruce his
remedy. See 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112782, at *2-3, *12-15.
5