2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-13-2006

Reaves v. USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-5040

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Reaves v. USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1268.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1268
APS-173 UNREPORTED - NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-5040

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

REGINALD REAVES,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-05033)

District Judge: Honorable Marvin Katz

__________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 23, 2006

BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed: April 13, 2006)

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM

Reginald Reaves was convicted of various drug-related crimes following a jury

trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We

affirmed in United States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711 (3d Cir. 1994). Since then Reaves has
2

unsuccessfully attacked his conviction and sentence through a series of collateral

challenges under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2241, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the All Writs

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (specifically, the ancient writs of error coram nobis and audita

querela). 

In 2005 Reaves filed another attack on his sentence via a petition for a writ of

audita querela, seeking relief pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

Reeves has appealed the District Court’s denial of his petition. We will summarily affirm

under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because it clearly appears that no

substantial question is presented by this appeal. 

A motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means

to challenge collaterally a federal conviction or sentence. The All Writs Act is a residual

source of authority to issue writs in exceptional circumstances only. Pennsylvania Bureau

of Correction v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). In United States v. ValdezPacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held,

and we agree, that “[a] prisoner may not circumvent valid congressional limitations on

collateral attacks by asserting that those very limitations create a gap in the postconviction

remedies that must be filled by the common law writs” such as audita querela. Id. at

1080. Thus, we have held that section 2255 is not rendered “inadequate or ineffective,”

thereby enabling a prisoner to resort to coram nobis, by the mere fact that he cannot meet

the stringent standards for authorizing the filing of a second or successive section 2255
 We note that even if audita querela were otherwise available, Reaves would not be 1

able to rely on Booker because that decision does not apply retroactively to cases on

collateral review. See Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608 (3d Cir. 2005); In re

Olopade, 403 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2005).

motion. United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The

same applies to petitions for a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d

1172, 1175 (11 Cir. 2005) (writ of audita querela unavailable where relief is cognizable th

under section 2255).1

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.