Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0010-01.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

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Duane Wendall LARSON, Appellant.
    No. 03-2034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 6, 2004.
    Richard Earl Vosepka, Jr., Nathan P. Petterson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Duane Wendall Larson, pro se, Murrieta, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Duane Larson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he sought to vacate his drug conviction and sentence (from which he has been released). We agree with the district court that Mr. Larson has not shown he is entitled to coram nobis relief, because he unsuccessfully raised on direct appeal and in prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions the Fourth Amendment and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that he raises here. See Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (coram nobis petitioner not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal or in § 2255 motion), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1782, 14 L.Ed.2d 706 (1965); cf. United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (8th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis relief is “ ‘substantially equivalent’ ” to habeas relief, and abuse-of-the-writ principle applies to coram nobis cases (quoted source omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.