IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 18, 2009
No. 08-60380
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
TERRANCE CARVELL GUINN, also known as Terrence Carvell Guinn
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:99-CR-8-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terrance Carvell Guinn seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on
appeal from the denial of his writ of error coram nobis challenging his 1999
guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon.
To proceed IFP, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal
must not be frivolous. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The
writ of error coram nobis “is an extraordinary remedy available to a petitioner
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-60380
no longer in custody who seeks to vacate a criminal conviction in circumstances
where the petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a consequence of the
criminal conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient magnitude to
justify the extraordinary relief.” Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th
Cir. 1996). The writ is available “only to correct errors resulting in a complete
miscarriage of justice.” Id. Guinn argues that he is entitled to such relief
because his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to
suppress or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He contends that there is a reasonable
probability that such motions would have been decided in his favor.
As part of an agreement with the Government, Guinn waived the right to
appeal his conviction or sentence, as well as his right to pursue relief pursuant
to § 2255 or in any postconviction proceeding. We agree with the district court
that Guinn has waived his right to pursue postconviction relief. Even if Guinn
could establish that he preserved the right to bring the present writ, he has not
raised a nonfrivolous issue regarding whether he was entitled to relief. Guinn
offers no argument or factual basis on which a motion to suppress or a § 2255
motion could have been filed. His conclusional assertions do not support any
claim for extraordinary relief. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 423 (5th
Cir. 1998) (holding that appellant had not made a showing “with the clarity
requisite for coram nobis relief”). Accordingly, Guinn has not presented a
nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th
Cir. 1983).
The motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal
is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
2