IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50875

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CR-10-1

Before SMITH, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carol Morris, former federal prisoner # 76547-080 and current Texas 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50875 Document: 00512921836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
No. 14-50875

prisoner # 1681899, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her appeal 

from the order denying her request for issuance of a writ of coram nobis. The 

district court determined that because Morris is currently incarcerated and 

therefore “in custody,” that writ is unavailable and, as an additional basis, that

she failed to allege “sound reasons” why she did not earlier seek appropriate 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or 2255.

On appeal, Morris contends that her federal sentence has fully expired 

and that therefore she is no longer “in custody.” Accordingly, she maintains 

that she is entitled to a writ of coram nobis. Morris is correct. See Morris v. 

United States, 258 F. App’x 696, 696 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting that Morris “was 

released from Bureau of Prisons custody in July 2004 and completed her concurrent, three-year terms of supervised release during the pendency of this 

appeal”); cf United States v. Scruggs, 691 F.3d 660, 662 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2012) 

(stating that the movant was “in custody” for purposes of § 2255 because he 

was serving a term of supervised release). Although incarcerated in state 

prison on apparently different charges, Morris is no longer serving her federal 

sentence, nor was she serving her sentence or term of supervised release when 

she filed her motion. Because she is not in custody under the federal sentence 

or under any restriction related to that sentence, the proper vehicle for her 

claims would be to seek the extraordinary remedy of coram nobis. See United 

States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 534−35 (5th Cir. 2004).

Nevertheless, the district court’s alternative basis for denying relief 

remains unchallenged on appeal. To satisfy the requirements for seeking a

writ of coram nobis, the movant must present a “sound reason” for “the failure 

to seek appropriate earlier relief.” United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422

(5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954)). 

Because Morris has not briefed that issue, she has waived it. See Yohey v. 

2

 Case: 14-50875 Document: 00512921836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
No. 14-50875

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224−25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that even pro se litigants 

must brief arguments to preserve them).

Because Morris has presented a meritorious issue―that she is no longer 

“in custody”―her appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits, so leave 

to proceed IFP is GRANTED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983). The order denying the request for a writ of coram nobis is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-50875 Document: 00512921836 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/30/2015