UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

COLLIER DOUGLAS SESSOMS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00063-BR-1) 

Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Collier Douglas Sessoms, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Collier Douglas Sessoms, a federal prisoner, appeals 

the district court’s order dismissing his self-styled “Motion 

for [a] Writ of Coram Nobis,” which the court construed as a 

petition for a writ of audita querela brought under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1651(a) (2006).* Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

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

conviction where there is a fundamental error resulting in 

conviction, and no other means of relief is available. United 

States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-11 (1954); United States v. 

Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). The remedy is 

limited, however, to those petitioners who are no longer in 

custody pursuant to their convictions. Carlisle v. United 

States, 517 U.S. 416, 428-29 (1996); Akinsade, 686 F.3d at 252. 

 * “Writs of audita querela and coram nobis are similar, but 

not identical.” United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 

n.6 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Usually, a writ of coram nobis is used to attack a judgment 

that was infirm at the time it issued, for reasons that later 

came to light.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration 

omitted). A writ of audita querela, by contrast, “is used to 

challenge a judgment that was correct at the time rendered but 

which is rendered infirm by matters which arise after its 

rendition.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Sessoms’ 

petition, which challenges his convictions and sentence 

following his guilty plea to transmission of child pornography 

and transportation of obscene matters over the Internet, appears 

to seek relief in the form of writs of error coram nobis and 

audita querela. 
3

Further, a writ of audita querela is not available to 

a petitioner when other avenues of relief are available, such as 

a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2012). Torres, 282 F.3d at 1245; United States v. Johnson, 962 

F.2d 579, 582 (7th Cir. 1992). That a petitioner may not 

proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this 

court does not alter this conclusion. See Carrington v. United 

States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he statutory 

limits on second or successive habeas petitions do not create a 

‘gap’ in the post-conviction landscape that can be filled with 

the common law writs.”). 

Sessoms is currently in custody pursuant to his 

convictions, and he previously challenged his convictions and 

sentence in a § 2255 motion. Although Sessoms’ present 

challenges were not raised in his § 2255 motion, he has not 

sought authorization from this court to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion. As Sessoms fails to establish the 

grounds needed to obtain relief under either writ, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. We deny Sessoms’ motion to extend 

the filing time for new evidence and dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED