BLD-160 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 20-2961 

___________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

EDWARD M. ZINNER, 

 Appellant 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 95-cr-00048-001) 

District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova 

____________________________________ 

Submitted on the Government’s Motion for Summary Affirmance 

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

April 22, 2021 

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and PORTER, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: April 27, 2021) 

_________ 

OPINION*

_________ 

PER CURIAM 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2 

 Edward Zinner appeals from the District Court’s order denying his petition for a 

writ of coram nobis. After Zinner filed a pro se brief, the Government filed a motion for 

summary affirmance. For the reasons that follow, we grant the Government’s motion and 

will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. 

 The procedural history of this case and the details of Zinner’s claims are well 

known to the parties and need not be discussed at length. In 1995, Zinner pleaded guilty 

to racketeering and was sentenced to 68 months in prison.1

 After filing an unsuccessful 

§ 2255 motion, he filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), alleging that his 

counsel acted under a conflict of interest and misled him into pleading guilty. The 

District Court denied the motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. See United States 

v. Zinner, Crim. No. 95-0048, 1998 WL 57522, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 1998). 

Over twenty years later, in 2019, Zinner filed another Rule 60(b) motion based on 

the same allegations. The District Court denied the motion, and we denied his request for 

a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 19-2839. In August 2020, he filed a pro se 

petition for a writ of coram nobis, alleging yet again that counsel had a conflict of 

interest. The District Court denied the petition, and Zinner filed a timely notice of 

appeal. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise de novo review 

over legal issues arising from the denial of coram nobis relief. See United States v. 

1

 Zinner is no longer in custody on the conviction at issue. He is currently serving a 

sentence of 120 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to financial crimes. See 

United States v. Zinner, Crim. No. 17-cr-00003 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2018). 
3 

Rhines, 640 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We may take summary action if an 

appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

A petitioner seeking a writ of coram nobis must, inter alia, assert an error of a 

fundamental kind that had no remedy at the time of the criminal proceeding. Ragbir v. 

United States, 950 F.3d 54, 62 (3d Cir. 2020). A fundamental error is one that 

undermines the jurisdiction of the trial court and invalidates the proceeding. Id. at 63. 

The Supreme Court has noted, “it is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal 

criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be necessary or appropriate.” 

Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (internal alteration and quotation 

marks omitted). 

Zinner has not alleged a fundamental error that would entitle him to coram nobis 

relief. In his petition, he asserts that his defense counsel had a conflict of interest with 

respect to Zinner’s guilty plea. This alleged error does not undermine the jurisdiction of 

the trial court or invalidate his criminal proceedings. Moreover, as noted above, the 

District Court held an evidentiary hearing addressing these allegations in 1998, and we 

recently denied Zinner a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) 

motion raising these same allegations. See C.A No. 19-2839. 

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4. For the reasons set forth above, we grant the 

Government’s motion for summary action and will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

September 16, 2020 order. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. The Government’s motion to be 

excused from filing a brief is denied as moot.