Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01998/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01998-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Duina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

HLD-147 (June 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1998

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JUAN DUINA,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 98-cr-00276-001)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit 

LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 30, 2010

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed: July 26, 2010 

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Duina appeals from the District Court’s order denying his petition for

a writ of audita querela. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District

Court’s order.

In July 2000, Duina was convicted of drug trafficking and money

Case: 10-1998 Document: 003110228258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2010
2

laundering. He was subsequently sentenced to 360 months in prison. His conviction and

sentence were affirmed on appeal. Duina filed an unsuccessful § 2255 motion as well as

an unsuccessful application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. In September

2009, Duina filed a petition for a writ of audita querela. He requested that he be

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

220 (2005). After the government filed a response, the District Court denied the petition. 

Duina’s reply was received a few days later. Duina subsequently filed a motion pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) seeking to reopen the case on the grounds that he had not received

the District Court’s order. The District Court granted the motion and noted that its

previous order was premature as it had not considered Duina’s reply. The District Court

considered the reply and denied the petition. Duina filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have held that a defendant may not seek relief via a writ of audita

querela if his claim is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Massey v. United States, 581

F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009). Duina’s claim is cognizable under § 2255. That Duina is

unable to meet the gate-keeping requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 does not entitle him to proceed via audita querela. Id.

Case: 10-1998 Document: 003110228258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2010
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented

in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set

forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See

Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. 

3

Case: 10-1998 Document: 003110228258 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2010