Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00152-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES M. CULLITON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

CIV. NO. S-05-0152 EJG 

CR. NO. S-99-0537 EJG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE OR, ALTERNATIVELY,

FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to

vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 or, alternatively, for a writ of coram nobis, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1651. After reviewing the record and the documents

filed in connection with the motion, the court has determined

that it may be decided without an evidentiary hearing because the

files and the records of the case affirmatively show the factual

and legal invalidity of defendant’s arguments. Shah v. United

States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1989). For the reasons

set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

/// 

Case 2:05-cv-00152-EJG Document 1 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 2

BACKGROUND

Defendant was convicted January 11, 2000, following a jury

trial, of one count of making a false statement, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1001. He was sentenced November 20, 2000 to a term

of no imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $5,000. His

conviction was initially reversed, then, following the

government’s petition for rehearing, was affirmed on appeal April

30, 2003. United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.

2003). Defendant’s petition for certiorari was denied January

12, 2004. The instant motion seeks post-conviction relief in the

form of either an order vacating his sentence, or issuance of a

writ of coram nobis.

DISCUSSION

Defendant raises three claims in his motion, all of which he

alleges violate various of his constitutional rights. First, he

contends that § 1001 is pre-empted by federal aviation statutes

and regulations. Second, defendant argues that the jury was

improperly instructed on the elements of § 1001. Third,

defendant asserts that erroneous evidentiary rulings deprived him

of a fair trial. The government opposes the motion on procedural

grounds as well as on the merits. The court will address both

the procedural issues and the substantive claims.

A. 28 U.S.C. § 2255

To the extent defendant seeks relief pursuant to § 2255, his

motion is DENIED. Defendant is not ‘in custody’, which is a

Case 2:05-cv-00152-EJG Document 1 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 3

jurisdictional prerequisite for issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus by a federal court. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490

(1989). Nor do the collateral consequences of his conviction,

namely payment of a fine and revocation of his license to

practice law, render him ‘in custody’. “[T]he imposition of a

fine or the revocation of a license is merely a collateral

consequence of conviction, and does not meet the ‘in custody’

requirement.” Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th

Cir. 1998). 

B. Coram Nobis

 When a defendant has served his sentence, the writ of coram

nobis is available to challenge the validity of a conviction only

under the most compelling circumstances. United States v.

Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954). The writ empowers a court to

vacate its judgment “for errors of fact . . . in those cases

where the errors [are] of the most fundamental character . . . 

such as rendered the proceeding itself invalid.” United States v.

Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 (1914). District courts have the power to

issue the writs under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

Entitlement to coram nobis relief requires a showing that:

1) a more usual remedy is unavailable; 2) valid reasons exist for

not attacking the conviction earlier; 3) adverse consequences of

the conviction satisfy the case or controversy requirements of

Article III; and 4) the error is of “the most fundamental

nature.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th

Case 2:05-cv-00152-EJG Document 1 Filed 05/12/05 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 4

Cir. 1987). In the instant case the government argues that

defendant has not met two of the four requirements, rendering his

motion procedurally defective. Resolution of the government’s

contentions requires examination of the substantive claims. 

Accordingly, assuming arguendo that the writ of coram nobis is

the appropriate vehicle for defendant to raise his claims, the

court finds them to be without merit.

1. Pre-emption

Defendant’s first claim, that his prosecution under § 1001

is barred by the more specific provisions criminalizing false

statements under federal aviation statutes and regulations, was

previously rejected by the Ninth Circuit in its affirmance of his

conviction, albeit under the guise of a different claim. In

rejecting his “primary jurisdiction” argument on appeal, the

appellate court held that “simply because the FAA has the

competence to deal with false statements on its applications does

not mean that Congress has conferred upon it sole responsibility

to penalize false statements, thereby suspending the operation of

a criminal statute of general application.” United States v.

Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1082 (2003). 

However, even if defendant’s claim of “pre-emption” is

separate from his claim of “primary jurisdiction,” defendant has

not cited, nor has the court found, a clear, unambiguous

expression of Congressional intent to disallow a prosecution

under § 1001, in favor of prosecution under an FAA statute, for

Case 2:05-cv-00152-EJG Document 1 Filed 05/12/05 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 5

falsification of a statement on a FAA form. Defendant’s first

claim is DENIED.

2. Instructional error

In this claim, defendant contends that the court erred, and

counsel was ineffective at trial and on appeal for not objecting

to the error, when it followed binding Ninth Circuit authority

concerning the jury instructions given on the elements of a §

1001 offense. As discussed in detail in the government’s

response brief, assertions by the defendant that both the court

and defense counsel were in error for following established Ninth

Circuit precedent, borders on the frivolous. Defendant’s second

claim is DENIED. 

3. Evidentiary rulings

In his final claim, defendant raises two arguments

concerning an evidentiary ruling by the trial court. First,

defendant argues that the court erroneously excluded “defense

theory” testimony designed to discredit the government’s expert

medical witness, Dr. Brown. Second, defendant argues that trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to renew his attempts to

admit this evidence despite the court’s pretrial exclusion. 

As the government points out in its response to the motion,

the court’s ruling that testimony by other pilots concerning

their own experiences with Dr. Brown was not probative of

defendant’s experiences; therefore, it was within the court’s

discretion to exclude the evidence. Moreover, the court’s review

Case 2:05-cv-00152-EJG Document 1 Filed 05/12/05 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 6

of its trial notes, taken at the time of defendant’s trial

testimony, reveal that defendant was glib, evasive and

opportunistic in his testimony, thus providing ample reason for

the jury to disbelieve him where his statements contradicted with

government witness Dr. Brown. Cf. Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d

1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1989) (court may rely on its own notes and

recollections of the proceedings in ruling on post-conviction

motions). 

Finally, defendant has not shown that, in the face of

overwhelming evidence of guilt, defense’s counsel’s failure to

renew his request for admission of this testimony, would have

made it more likely than not that defendant would not have been

convicted. Defendant’s third claim is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

1. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his

sentence, or for a writ of coram nobis, is DENIED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close companion case

CIV. NO. S-05-0152.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005

/s/Edward J. Garcia 

EDWARD J. GARCIA, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00152-EJG Document 1 Filed 05/12/05 Page 6 of 6