BLD

- 340 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 5

- 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 Eas tern District of Pennsylvania ( E.D. Pa

. 2

- 94

- cr - 00192

- 010 ) District Court Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary A ction 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 C ourt 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 orde r denying his petition for a writ of audita querela. T his appeal presents no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
R odriguez was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District o f 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 fi led 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
app ealability. Rodriguez has since filed two unsuccessful applications pursuan t 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. Book er , 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 a udita 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 , concluding3

that Rodriguez cannot seek relief through a petiti on 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 unde r 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 § 2 2 55 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, Rod riguez “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 que stion, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.