2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-3-2013 

# U S A v . H ith a m Abuhour a n
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-3570

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . H ith a m Abuhour a n " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1436. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/14361

GLD
- 071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 2

- 35 70

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

v. HITHAM ABUHOURAN,

Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2 : 95

- c r - 00560

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summar y Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 December 6, 2012 Before: FUENTES, FISHER and ROTH , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 3, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________2

PER CURIAM Hitham Abuhouran appeals pro se from the District Court ’s order dis missing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis

. Because the appeal presents no substantial question , we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
I. In 1996, Abuhouran entered a guilty plea to charges of bank fraud, laundering of

mone tary i nstruments, co nspiracy, and perjury, among others . T he United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sentenced him to a term of incarceration of
188 months followed by five years of supervised release. Abuhouran unsuccessfully
fil ed a direct appeal as well as a number of motions to vacate, modify, or correct his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After completing his term of incarceration , he remained in prison to serve a consecutive 24

- month sentenc e imposed in a separate case. In January 2012, while stil l incarcerated , Abuhouran filed a petition for a writ of

error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) . I n his petition, Abuhouran clai med he should not be required to serve his five

- year term of sup ervised release because he can meet the standard for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel , as articulated by the Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky , 130 S. Ct. 1473 , 1485 (2010), and retroactively applied by this Court in United States v. Orocio , 645 F.3d 630 , 641 (3d Cir. 2011)

. 1 The

1 On April 30, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of whether Padilla applies retroactively on collateral review. See Chaidez v. United States , 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. granted , 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012).3

District Court denied his petition on the ground that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is not available to a petitioner who is still in custody. Abuhouran timely appealed

. II. Our review of legal issues o n appeal from a decision denying coram nobis relief is de novo , and we review factual findings for clear error. Orocio , 645 F.3d at 63 5

. We may summarily affirm a judgment of the District Court on any basis supported by the record if the appeal does not raise a substantial question. See I.O.P. 10.6; see also Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011). Upon review, we will affirm the District Court’s decision because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
T he power to grant a writ of error coram nobis in criminal matters comes from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See United States v. Stoneman , 870 F.2d 102, 10 5 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Morgan , 346 U.S. 502 (1954)). Traditionally, a

w rit of error coram nobis is used in attacking convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer “ in custody” for purposes of section 2255 , s e e United States v. Baptiste , 223 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2000) , which includes supervis ed re lease ,

s ee United States v. Essig , 10 F.3d 968, 970 n.3 (3d Cir. 1993) , superseded on other grounds by rule , L.A.R. 31.3, as recognized in U nited S tates v. Turner , 677 F.3d 570, 578 (3d Cir. 2012). W hen an alternative remedy such as habeas corpus is avail able, a writ of

error coram nobis may not issue. United States v. Denedo , 556 U.S. 904 , 911 (2009). Here, as the District Court correctly noted, a writ of error coram nobis is not available to Abuhouran because he is still in custody for the purposes of section 2255. See Baptiste ,4

223 F.3d at 189. Although he is no longer incarcerated, Abuhouran is currently serving a five

- year term of supervised release. See Essig , 10 F.3d at 970 n.3

. Therefore, Abuhouran may seek authorization to file a second or su ccessive section 2255 motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) , rather than petition for a common law writ of error
coram nobis

. See Denedo , 556 U.S. at 911.
Accor dingly, this appeal presents us with no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.