BLD-340 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2114

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EDWIN RODRIGUEZ

a/k/a Cutin

 Edwin Rodriguez,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. 2-94-cr-00192-010)

District Court Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 17, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: September 23, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Edwin Rodriguez, a pro se inmate, appeals the District Court’s order denying his 

petition for a writ of audita querela. This appeal presents no substantial question, and we 

will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

Rodriguez was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The District Court sentenced 

him as a career offender to 360 months in prison. This Court affirmed. See United States 

v. Rodriguez, 168 F.3d 480 (Table) (3d Cir. 1998) (No. 97-1937). Rodriguez then filed a 

motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the District Court denied 

after conducting an evidentiary hearing. We denied his request for a certificate of 

appealability.

Rodriguez has since filed two unsuccessful applications pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2244 to file a successive § 2255 motion. In 2010, he filed a petition for a writ of audita 

querela under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, in the District Court, claiming that he 

was entitled to resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The 

District Court denied the motion, and we summarily affirmed. United States v. 

Rodriguez, 446 F. App’x 439 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). On April 2, 2015, Rodriguez 

filed in the District Court a second petition for a writ of audita querela under the All 

Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, claiming that he was entitled to resentencing under Begay 

v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008). The District Court denied the petition, concluding 
3

that Rodriguez cannot seek relief through a petition for a writ of audita querela on the 

basis of his inability to satisfy the statutory requirements for filing a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. He appeals.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a district court’s 

order granting or denying a petition for a writ of audita querela is plenary. See United 

States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Grider v. Keystone Health Plan 

Cent., Inc., 500 F.3d 322, 328 (3d Cir. 2007) (exercising plenary review of injunctions 

under All Writs Act).

The District Court properly denied Rodriguez’s petition for a writ of audita 

querela. “Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that 

authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.” Massey v. United States, 581 

F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). A § 2255 motion is the proper 

avenue for Rodriguez to challenge his sentence. Id. Although he has filed two 

unsuccessful applications to file a successive § 2255 motion, Rodriguez “may not seek 

relief through a petition for a writ of audita querela on the basis of his inability to satisfy 

the requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.” Id.

Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily 

affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.