Case ID: f-appx_494/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry Meyer KATZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-1485.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2012.
    Filed: Nov. 30, 2012.
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Former federal inmate Harry Katz appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We agree with the court that Katz may not raise in a coram nobis petition the same claims that he previously litigated in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 338, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992) (successive habeas petition raising identical grounds as prior petition must generally be dismissed); United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir.1996) (coram nobis relief is substantially equivalent to habeas relief, and principles barring successive petitions apply); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir.1965) (per curiam) (eoram nobis petitioner is not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal or in § 2255 motion): We also find that the district court did not err in denying the petition without a hearing or discovery. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.