Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06428/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pearlie Lee Ingram
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6428

PEARLIE INGRAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (9:14-cv-04771-CMC)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pearlie Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6428 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/06/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Pearlie Lee Ingram appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We 

affirm.

A writ of error coram nobis can be used to vacate a 

conviction when a fundamental error resulted in conviction and 

no other means of relief is available. United States v. Denedo, 

556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009); United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 

248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). But see Carlisle v. United States, 

517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a 

situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram 

nobis would be necessary or appropriate.” (alteration and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). We review for abuse of 

discretion the district court’s decision to deny coram nobis 

relief. Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir.

2013).

Applying these standards, we conclude that the district 

court did not err in denying Ingram’s petition for writ of coram 

nobis. Accordingly, we deny Ingram’s motions to consider new 

evidence and for oral argument and affirm the judgment of the 

district court. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-6428 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/06/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-6428 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/06/2016 Pg: 3 of 3