FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB RUARY 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 56 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 3- cr-0 00 45 -DHB-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

vers us TOBIAS ANTONIO FRANK, a.k .a. “ Ch arl ie ”,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 14 , 20 11 )
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:Tob ia s A. Fran k, a fed eral pr o se pr is on er, ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r

rel ie f un de r th e All W rit s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1( a), i n wh ic h h e arg ue d t ha t h e was
in co rrec tl y de em ed a care er of fen de r an d ha d no ot he r ad eq ua te mea n s t o o bt ai n
rel ie f. The di st ric t co ur t co ns tru ed hi s m ot io n as on e se ek in g rel ie f un de r th e writ of

au di ta qu erel a. On ap pe al , Fran k arg ue s th at he is el ig ib le fo r rel ie f un de r th e writ of

co ram no bi s an d th at 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 wou ld no t pr ov id e ad eq ua te rel ie f be cau se th e § 2 25 5 s ta tu te of l im it at io ns ha s ex pi red . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a writ of au d i t a qu erel a de no vo an d th e de ni al of a
writ of co ram no b i s f

o r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Hol t, 41 7 F.3 d 11 72 , 11 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (wri t of au di ta qu e r e l a ) ; Ali kh an i v. Uni te d St at es , 20 0 F.3 d

73 2, 7 34 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (wri t o f co ram no bi s)

. The All W rit s Act al lo ws “ al l co ur ts es ta bl is he d by Act of Co ng res s [to ] is su e
al l writ s ne ces sa ry or ap pr op ria te in ai d of th ei r res pe ct iv e juri sd ic ti on s an d ag reea bl e

to th e u sa ge s an d p rin ci pl es of l aw.” 28 U.S.C. § 16 51 (a). Howev er, th e co ur ts do

no t h av e u nf

et te red di sc ret io n t o i ss ue writ s u nd er t hi s ac t:
The All W rit s Act is a res id ua l so ur ce of au th or it y to is su e writ s th at are no t ot he rwis e co ve red by st at ut e. W he re a st at ut e sp eci fic al ly ad dr es se s th e pa rti cu la r is su e at ha nd , it is th at au th or it y , an d no t th e All W rit s Act, th at is co nt ro ll in g. Alt ho ug h th at Act em po wers fed eral co ur ts to fas hi on ex tra or di na ry rem ed ie s whe n th e ne ed ari se s, it do es no t au th or iz e th em to is su e ad ho c writ s whe ne ve r co m pl ia nc e wit h st at ut or y pr oc ed ur es ap pe ars in co nv en ie nt or l es s ap pr op ria te

.

2Pa. Bu reau of Co rr. v. U.S. Mar sh al s Serv ., 47 4 U.S. 34 , 43 (1 98 5)

. “[A ] w r i t of

au di ta qu erel a m ay no t be gr an te d whe n rel ie f is co gn iz ab le un d e r [ 28 U.S.C.] §

22 55 .” Hol t, 41 7 F.3d at 11 75

. Rel ie f un de r th e writ of co ram no bi s, as a m at te r of
la w, is un av ai la bl e to pe rs on s in cu st od y be cau se su ch pe rs on s m ay av ai l th em se lv es
of th e st at ut or y rem ed ie s in 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 11 7 F.3 d 47 1,

47 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ). Fed eral pr is on ers se ek i n g to co ll at eral ly at ta ck th ei r

co nv ic ti on s and se nt en ces ge ne ral ly m us t do so un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5; see als o S awy er v . Hol de r, 32 6 F .3d 13 63 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). As ap pl ie d h ere, Fr an k i s n ot eli gi bl e fo r rel ie f un de r a wri t o f au di ta qu erel a
be cau se as a fed eral pr is on er at ta ck in g th e le ga li ty of hi s se nt en ce, Fran k was el ig ib le

to m ov e fo r § 22 55 rel ie f. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. The refo r e , i n t h i s c as e, “ rel ie f is

co gn iz ab le un de r § 2 25 5.” Hol t, 41 7 F.3d at 11 75

. Seco nd , Fran k is in el ig ib le fo r 1

rel ie f un de r th e writ of co ram no bi s be cau se he is cu rren tl y a f e d e r al pr is on er. See

Bro wn, 1 1 7 F.3 d at 47 5. Fi na ll y , be cau se Fran k is pr oc eed in g pr o se , th e di st ric t

co ur t cou ld ha ve li be ral ly co ns tru ed hi s m ot io n un de r th e All W rit s Act as a § 22 55

Fr ank’s a rg ument that he wa s ineligible f or § 2255 re lief bec ause the statute of 1 limit ations has expired is without merit. L ike the appe llant in Holt, Frank se eks to cha lleng e the leg ality of his sentenc e. See id. The re w as cog nizable relief unde r § 2255 for the appe llant in Holt even thoug h he could not obtain that re lief bec ause of the proc edura l rules re stricting
succe ssive § 2255 applications. See id. L ikewise, ther e is cog nizable relief f or F rank unde r § 2255 even thoug h he likely cannot obtain that r elief be cause the § 2255 statute of limitations has expired.
3m ot io n. See Hol t, 41 7 F.3 d at 1 1 7 5

. H o w e ve r, be cau se Fran k co nc ed es th at th e §

22 55 st at ut e of li m it at io ns ha s ex pi red , th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n
in st ead of c on st ru in g i t as fil ed un de r § 2 25 5.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

. AFFIRMED.

4