Case ID: f-appx_589/html/0130-01.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

William Edward ReBROOK, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-6352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 26, 2014.
    Decided: Dec. 30, 2014.
    Lonnie Carl Simmons, Ditrapano, Barrett, Dipiero, McGinley & Simmons PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER -CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Edward ReBrook, III, appeals the district court’s order, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation (except as otherwise stated), denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and dismissing the action. In his writ, Re-Brook alleges that his conviction for wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346 (2012), is no longer valid in light of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010). We note that a writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort, United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988), and that it is narrowly limited to extraordinary cases presenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice. United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the writ, United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 251-52 (4th Cir.2012) (providing review standard), and accordingly affirm for the reasons stated by the district court that the conviction is valid under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 under a property fraud theory. ReBrook v. United States, No. 2:10-ev-01009, 2014 WL 555283 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 11, 2014). 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.