[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-13897

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60189-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

STEVE AUSTIN, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

No. 20-14393

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60189-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

STEVE AUSTIN, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 27, 2021)

Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Steve Austin, Jr. seeks relief from what he contends was a wrongful federal 

conviction. In 2007, the federal government charged Austin with burglarizing a 

post office in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115. Austin pleaded guilty and was 

sentenced to 33 months in prison plus a term of supervised release. He ended up 

violating his term of supervised release and was sentenced to a revocation term of 

21 months in prison. He completed his sentence and was released from federal 

custody in 2014. 

Six years later, Austin, proceeding pro se, moved in federal district court for 

relief from the 2007 conviction. As he explains on appeal, the police found him at 

the post office not because he was burglarizing it, but because he was at a nearby 

restaurant, heard someone break in, and was there following up when the police 

arrived. He emphasizes that no eyewitnesses testified to his burglarizing the post 

USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

office, that no fingerprint evidence supported the allegations against him, and that, 

in any event, nothing was stolen from the post office. 

Austin asked the district court to vacate his conviction but didn’t say what

specifically authorized the court to grant that remedy. The district court thus 

addressed three possible sources of authority under which it could evaluate his 

claims: 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), and the writ of 

coram nobis. The court determined that it would lack jurisdiction under § 2255 

and Rule 60(b)(3), and that Austin failed to satisfy the requirements for a writ of 

coram nobis. On appeal, Austin contends that the district court erred and reiterates 

that he was wrongfully convicted. 

I

We conclude that the district court was correct. Regardless of the merits and 

demerits of Austin’s claim that he was wrongfully convicted, we aren’t now in a 

position to adjudicate that case. Because Austin is no longer in federal custody 

pursuant to the conviction at issue, we can’t authorize relief pursuant to § 2255. 

See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989). And because his 2007 

conviction arose in a criminal case, rather than a civil case, we can’t authorize 

relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). See United States v. 

Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003). 

USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

As for the writ of coram nobis, it authorizes courts to vacate a conviction 

only when (1) no other remedy is available, (2) the petitioner presents sound 

reasons for failing to seek relief earlier, and (3) the petitioner seeks to remedy an 

error “of the most fundamental character” that rendered the original proceeding 

“irregular and invalid.” United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203–04 (11th Cir. 

2000); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, Austin 

just doesn’t meet that extraordinarily high standard. As to element (2), he hasn’t 

shown us that he couldn’t have sought the relief on direct appeal or through a 

timely § 2255 motion. And as to element (3), we don’t think that Austin has 

shown that the proceedings leading to his original conviction—which consisted of 

an indictment and guilty plea—were irregular or invalid, or that any fundamental 

error occurred. Accordingly, we can’t grant the writ.

1

II

Austin separately moved in the district court for certain documents relating 

to his past court cases. The district court denied that motion and Austin appealed 

that denial as well. But on appeal, Austin clarifies that he doesn’t need the 

documents himself, but rather wanted to make sure that the reviewing court had

them for its review. The documents are needed, he says “for the Court to ‘decide’

1 In his reply brief, Austin suggested that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because he raised it

for the first time in his reply brief, this claim isn’t before us. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. 

Co., 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2014). 

USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

the motion[,] not for the petitioner to prepare.” We’ve been able to access all of 

the documents that we needed for the purpose of our review, so we think that 

Austin’s concerns, as articulated on appeal, have been addressed. To the extent 

that he does appeal the district court’s denial of his document request, we will 

affirm because the law gives him no freestanding right to the documents that he 

requested. See United States v. Cuya, 964 F.3d 969, 972 (11th Cir. 2020); 

Campbell v. United States, 538 F.2d 692, 693 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-13897 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 5 of 5