Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03165/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence Gibbs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

DLD-130 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3165

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TERRENCE GIBBS, also known as T 

also known as Terry,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-96-cr-00539-002)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle III

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 5, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 10, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3165 Document: 003111899607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2015
2

Terrence Gibbs appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for a writ of 

audita querela. For the reasons below, we will grant the Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance.

Gibbs was convicted in 1997 of drug trafficking and other crimes and sentenced to 

life in prison. We affirmed his conviction and sentence, see United States v. Gibbs, 190 

F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999), and the District Court’s denial of Gibbs’s motion filed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Gibbs, 77 F. App’x 107 (3d Cir. 2003). In 

2014, Gibbs filed a petition for a writ of audita querela. The District Court denied the 

petition as well as Gibbs’s motion for reconsideration. Gibbs filed a notice of appeal. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the District Court’s orders denying his 

petition and his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).

The District Court denied Gibbs’s petition based on our decision in Massey v. 

United States, 581 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). In Massey, the petitioner filed a 

petition for a writ of audita querela and argued that he was entitled to a new sentencing 

hearing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005). We held that Massey could not use audita querela as a vehicle for relief because 

his claim was cognizable under § 2255. Massey, 581 F.3d at 174. 

Gibbs argues that his petition raises a claim based on the “remedial, nonconstitutional” holding of Booker, which he contends is distinguishable from the claim in 

Massey. He asserts that when the mandatory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines was 

Case: 14-3165 Document: 003111899607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2015
3

excised by the Court in Booker to make the Guidelines constitutional, his life sentence 

was invalidated. However, like Gibbs, the petitioner in Massey argued that the 

sentencing court would have given him a shorter sentence if the Guidelines had not been 

viewed as mandatory. Id. at 174. We held that the District Court correctly determined 

that Massey could not use audita querela because his claim was cognizable on § 2255. 

Id. Here, as in Massey, Gibbs’s personal inability to use § 2255 to bring his claim does 

not establish that there is a gap in the post-conviction remedies that may be filled by 

filing for audita querela.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will grant the 

Government’s motion and summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit 

I.O.P. 10.6. The Government’s motion for permission to be excused from filing a brief is 

denied as moot.

Case: 14-3165 Document: 003111899607 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2015