UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS ANDREW GUARASCIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00045-F-2)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Andrew Guarascio, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Andrew Guarascio appeals the district court’s
order denying his self-styled “Petition for Writ of Audita
Querela, § 1651; Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to Charge an Offense,
F.R.Cr.P.12(b)(2); Alternatively, Motion to Arrest Judgment,
Fed.R.Cr.P.34(a)” seeking collateral review of his convictions
on federal bank robbery and firearms charges and 690-month
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.
Although the district court addressed Guarascio’s
claims for relief on the merits, we conclude that the petition
and associated motions were tantamount to a successive,
unauthorized motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012),
over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. The fact
that Guarascio cannot proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains
authorization from this court to file a successive motion does
not alter our conclusion. See Carrington v. United States,
503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he statutory limits on
second or successive habeas petitions do not create a ‘gap’ in
the post-conviction landscape that can be filled with the common
law writs.”); United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245
(10th Cir. 2002) (“[A] writ of audita querela is not available
to a petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to
2
vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.[A.] § 2255.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3