Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12564/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Proctor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12564

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:05-cr-14022-JEM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

MARK PROCTOR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 20, 2015)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 1 of 7
2

Mark Proctor, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his coram nobis motion to compel specific performance of his 

plea agreement. However, Proctor was not entitled to coram nobis relief because 

he is a federal prisoner, and he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 because he has already filed one § 2255 motion and has not sought 

authorization for a second or successive motion. Thus, we affirm the district court.

I.

In 2005, a grand jury indicted Proctor for three counts of promotion, 

distribution, and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

2252A. Proctor signed a written plea agreement with the government, the terms of 

which provided that he would plead guilty to one count in exchange for the 

government dropping the other two counts and recommending a two-level sentence 

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility and a onelevel reduction for timely entering the plea under § 3E1.1(b). His prison sentence 

would be followed by a term of supervised release of not more than three years. 

Proctor pleaded guilty to one count of promotion and distribution of child 

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) before the district court 

following a plea colloquy. The court allowed Proctor to remain out on bond but 

warned him to comply with the conditions of his bond and to stay in touch with his 

lawyer and court authorities. Proctor did not appear for sentencing, and the court 

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 2 of 7
3

issued a warrant for his arrest. After Proctor was arrested, a Presentence 

Investigation Report (PSI) was prepared that did not allow any reductions for 

responsibility and added two levels for obstruction of justice, since Proctor 

absconded from the supervision of his pretrial services officer. Proctor’s advisory 

guidelines range was 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, with a statutory range of 5 

to 20 years. The district court sentenced Proctor to 151 months’ imprisonment and 

10 years’ supervised release.1

In 2009, Proctor moved to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a magistrate 

judge recommended the motion be denied in its entirety. The district court adopted 

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied Proctor’s motion. In 

2012, the district court denied Proctor’s certificate of appealability, as did this 

court. Proctor moved for reconsideration of our order denying his motion for a 

certificate of appealability, but we denied the motion, finding that he offered no 

new evidence or arguments of merit warranting relief. 

In 2013, Proctor, proceeding pro se, moved the district court to compel 

specific performance of the plea agreement or to be allowed to withdraw his plea. 

The motion was captioned as seeking coram nobis relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and Proctor noted that he was “forced 

 1 Proctor appealed his sentence to this court, arguing that § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was 

unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Proctor, 298 F. App’x 832, 832 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(per curiam). We affirmed, noting the Supreme Court had already held that the statute was 

constitutional. Id. at 833. 

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 3 of 7
4

to file this instant motion under coram nobis in order to prevent a miscarriage of 

justice and manifest injustice” because of this court’s refusal to grant a certificate 

of appealability. 

Proctor argued that the government breached the plea agreement by not 

recommending the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and the 

one-level reduction for timely entering the plea; by not recommending a sentence 

at the low end of the guidelines; and by not arguing to the district court that the 

plea agreement estopped any enhancements in the PSI and that the plea agreement 

erroneously stated that the maximum sentence of supervised release was three 

years. He also made an ineffective assistance claim. In response, the government 

averred that coram nobis relief was unavailable and that Proctor breached the plea 

agreement by failing to show up to his sentencing hearing. 

The district court noted it would not consider the merits of Proctor’s 

ineffective assistance claim, which had already been raised in his earlier § 2255 

motion. As for Proctor’s other arguments, the district court concluded that 

Proctor’s failure to appear voided any prior agreement he had with the government. 

Further, Proctor had acknowledged in the plea agreement that the court had the 

authority to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum and that he could 

not withdraw the plea solely as a result of the sentence imposed. Nonetheless, 

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 4 of 7
5

Proctor received the benefit of his plea agreement, since he was sentenced at the 

low end of the advisory guidelines range. 

Proctor filed a motion in response to the order, which the district court 

construed as a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion, 

concluding that Proctor had not shown a manifest error of law or fact, nor had he 

presented any newly discovered evidence. This appeal ensued. 

II.

We review the denial of coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion. Alikhani 

v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). “[A] writ of 

error coram nobis is an extraordinary writ, limited to cases in which no statutory 

remedy is available or adequate.” United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471, 474–75 

(11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “the writ may issue 

only when the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character 

which has not been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding 

itself irregular and invalid.” Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Because federal prisoners may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, coram 

nobis relief is unavailable to them. See United States v. Garcia, 181 F.3d 1274, 

1274–75 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). However, “pro se applications for postconviction relief are to be liberally construed,” and we have held that a pleading 

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 5 of 7
6

erroneously styled as a coram nobis petition may be treated as a § 2255 motion. 

Brown, 117 F.3d at 475. 

On appeal, Proctor argues that he is wrongfully incarcerated because the 

district court allowed him to plead guilty to an offense for which he was not 

indicted, because the government breached his plea agreement when it did not 

recommend a three-level sentencing reduction, and because his term of supervised 

release exceeded the term he agreed to in his plea agreement. A motion under 

§ 2255 “may be used to enforce promises made in a plea agreement,” the relief 

Proctor seeks here. See United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1191 (11th Cir. 

2008) (per curiam). However, if a prisoner brings a § 2255 motion, he cannot 

bring a second or successive motion unless authorized by a panel of the court of 

appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Garcia, 181 F.3d at 1275. Here, Proctor 

has already filed one § 2255 motion, and he has not received this court’s 

permission to bring a successive motion. 

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Proctor’s 

motion for coram nobis relief; Proctor was not entitled to coram nobis relief as a 

federal prisoner, and he had an adequate remedy under § 2255. See Garcia, 181 

F.3d at 1274–75. Nor could Proctor’s motion be construed as a § 2255 motion, 

since Proctor has already filed one § 2255 motion and has not received 

authorization to bring another motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Garcia, 181 

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 6 of 7
7

F.3d at 1275. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-12564 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 7 of 7