Case ID: f-appx_600/html/0146-02.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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur WALTON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur Walton, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-6006, 15-6008.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 16, 2015.
    Decided: April 21, 2015.
    Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Eric Arthur Walton appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to recall the mandate or, in the alternative, for a writ of audita querela. Walton’s motions request that the district court reverse its denial, nearly twenty years earlier, of his requests for recusal of the trial judge who presided over his criminal prosecutions. Alternatively, Walton relies on the same allegations of judicial disqualification in seeking to overturn his convictions through a writ of audita querela, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012).

As the district court aptly noted, the rulings Walton seeks to vacate have no “mandate” for the district court to recall. Walton fails to identify any other legal mechanism for overruling the district court’s recusal rulings in his long-settled criminal cases. Moreover, as the district-court recognized, Walton’s claims do not implicate a gap in the present system of post-conviction relief that can be redressed by way of a writ of audita querela. See, e.g., Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir.2009); United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir.2005). Because Walton identifies no valid legal basis for obtaining the relief he seeks, the district court properly denied his motions.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.