USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13897
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60189-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVE AUSTIN, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 20-14393
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60189-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 2 of 5
STEVE AUSTIN, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 27, 2021)
Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steve Austin, Jr. seeks relief from what he contends was a wrongful federal
conviction. In 2007, the federal government charged Austin with burglarizing a
post office in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115. Austin pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to 33 months in prison plus a term of supervised release. He ended up
violating his term of supervised release and was sentenced to a revocation term of
21 months in prison. He completed his sentence and was released from federal
custody in 2014.
Six years later, Austin, proceeding pro se, moved in federal district court for
relief from the 2007 conviction. As he explains on appeal, the police found him at
the post office not because he was burglarizing it, but because he was at a nearby
restaurant, heard someone break in, and was there following up when the police
arrived. He emphasizes that no eyewitnesses testified to his burglarizing the post
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 3 of 5
office, that no fingerprint evidence supported the allegations against him, and that,
in any event, nothing was stolen from the post office.
Austin asked the district court to vacate his conviction but didn’t say what
specifically authorized the court to grant that remedy. The district court thus
addressed three possible sources of authority under which it could evaluate his
claims: 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), and the writ of
coram nobis. The court determined that it would lack jurisdiction under § 2255
and Rule 60(b)(3), and that Austin failed to satisfy the requirements for a writ of
coram nobis. On appeal, Austin contends that the district court erred and reiterates
that he was wrongfully convicted.
I
We conclude that the district court was correct. Regardless of the merits and
demerits of Austin’s claim that he was wrongfully convicted, we aren’t now in a
position to adjudicate that case. Because Austin is no longer in federal custody
pursuant to the conviction at issue, we can’t authorize relief pursuant to § 2255.
See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989). And because his 2007
conviction arose in a criminal case, rather than a civil case, we can’t authorize
relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). See United States v.
Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003).
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 4 of 5
As for the writ of coram nobis, it authorizes courts to vacate a conviction
only when (1) no other remedy is available, (2) the petitioner presents sound
reasons for failing to seek relief earlier, and (3) the petitioner seeks to remedy an
error “of the most fundamental character” that rendered the original proceeding
“irregular and invalid.” United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203–04 (11th Cir.
2000); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, Austin
just doesn’t meet that extraordinarily high standard. As to element (2), he hasn’t
shown us that he couldn’t have sought the relief on direct appeal or through a
timely § 2255 motion. And as to element (3), we don’t think that Austin has
shown that the proceedings leading to his original conviction—which consisted of
an indictment and guilty plea—were irregular or invalid, or that any fundamental
error occurred. Accordingly, we can’t grant the writ.1
II
Austin separately moved in the district court for certain documents relating
to his past court cases. The district court denied that motion and Austin appealed
that denial as well. But on appeal, Austin clarifies that he doesn’t need the
documents himself, but rather wanted to make sure that the reviewing court had
them for its review. The documents are needed, he says “for the Court to ‘decide’
1
In his reply brief, Austin suggested that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because he raised it
for the first time in his reply brief, this claim isn’t before us. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins.
Co., 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2014).
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 5 of 5
the motion[,] not for the petitioner to prepare.” We’ve been able to access all of
the documents that we needed for the purpose of our review, so we think that
Austin’s concerns, as articulated on appeal, have been addressed. To the extent
that he does appeal the district court’s denial of his document request, we will
affirm because the law gives him no freestanding right to the documents that he
requested. See United States v. Cuya, 964 F.3d 969, 972 (11th Cir. 2020);
Campbell v. United States, 538 F.2d 692, 693 (5th Cir. 1976).
AFFIRMED.
5