[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-17054 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 16, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 89-00233-CR-T-15
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENT BLUE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 16, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kent Blue, a federal prison inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order denying his motion for writ of error coram nobis. He argues that his
sentence was improperly enhanced based on a conviction for simple possession of
cocaine.
We review the denial of coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion. Alikhani
v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). Federal courts may issue a
writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which
states that "[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law." United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d
1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The bar for coram nobis relief
is high, and the writ may issue only when (1) “there is and was no other available
avenue of relief,” and (2) “the error involves a matter of fact of the most
fundamental character which has not been put in issue or passed upon and which
renders the proceeding itself irregular or invalid.” Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734
(citation and internal quotations omitted). Because federal prisoners, like Blue,
may make use of the statutory remedy of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, coram nobis relief is
unavailable to them. See United States v. Garcia, 181 F.3d 1274, 1274 (11th Cir.
1999) ("Coram nobis relief is unavailable to a person, such as the appellant, who is
still in custody."); United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471, 475 (11th Cir. 1997).
2
In affirming the district court for this reason, we note in passing that the
court correctly concluded that Blue’s coram nobis motion should not be treated as
a § 2255 motion, because Blue had already filed a § 2255 motion and had not
obtained from this court leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, as required by §
106 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1220-21. See Garcia, 181 F.3d at 1275.
AFFIRMED.
3