2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-24-2010 

# U SA v . J ohn Humphries P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4528

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J o hn Hump hrie s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1642. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1642B L D - 1 0 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4528

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J O H N M . H U M PH RI ES, A ppel l ant

___________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( W . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 96- cr - 00108) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J anuary28, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM J ohn H um phr i es , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof err or co ram n o b is an d m o ti o n fo r tran scripts. W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.1

I n 1996, H um phr i es pl eade d gui l tyi n fede r al courtt o cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e and p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te o x y c o d o n e . H e w a s s e n ten c e d to a ter m o f 9 2 m o n th s in p ri s o n a n d 3 6 m o n th s o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . H u m p h ri e s d id n o t f ile a d ir e c t a p p e a l. H um phr i es w as r el eas ed fr om fede r al cus t odyi n 2002. In 2 0 0 9 , H u m p h rie s c h a llen g e d h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e u n d e r th e A ll W rits A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1651, byfi l i ng a pet i t i on fora w r i tof err orcor am nobi s i n D i s tr i ct C ou rt . H um ph ri es cl ai m ed thathis tri al cou nsel w as i neff ect i ve fo r, am on g o ther things, i ns truct i ng hi m t o m ake a deal w i th the pr os ecut i on thatw as noti ncl uded i n hi s pl ea a g re e m e n t. H e a lso c laim e d th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b ya c c e p tin g h is p lea a n d f a ili n g to hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s pl ea. H um phr i es fur thercl ai m ed th a t th e re w a s in su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r h is p lea a n d th a t h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d . H u m p h rie s a lso f iled a m o tio n se e k in g th e tra n sc rip ts f ro m h is c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied H u m p h rie s’ c o ra m n o b is p e titio n a n d d e n ie d h is m o tio n f o r t ra n s c ri p ts a s m o o t. T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . A s re c o g n ize d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, “c o ra m n o b is h a s tra d iti o n a llyb e e n u se d to a ttac k c o n v ictio n s w ith c o n tin u in g c o n se q u e n c e s w h e n th e p e tit io n e r is n o lo n g e r ‘in cus t ody ’ forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 2255. ” U ni t ed St at es v. B apt i s t e, 223 F. 3d 188, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I ti s an extr aor di naryr emedyand a c our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o gr antr el i ef i s of l i m i t ed s cope. I d. U s e of the w r i ti s appr opr i at e t o corr ecterr or s forw hi ch ther e w as no r emedyavai l abl e atthe t i m e of tr i al and w her e val i d r eas ons exi s tforfai l i ng t o s eek r el i efB as ed on thes e conc l us i ons , w e nee d notaddr es s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s addi t i onal 1 fi ndi ng thatH um phr i es fai l ed t o s how thathe i s s uffe r i ng fr om cont i nui ng cons equenc es fr om hi s convi ct i on. W e as s um e w i thoutdeci di ng thatH um phr i es cont i nues t o s uffe r a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s e v e n th o u g h h e i s n o l o n g e ri n c u s t o d y. 2 s ooner . U ni t ed St at es v. St oneman, 870 F. 2d 102, 106 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . I n addi t i on, the err orm us tgo t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the tr i al courtand r enderthe cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs in v a lid . Id . W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatH um phr i es di d notes t abl i s h val i d r eas ons for fai l i ng t o s eek r el i ef s ooner . T he fa ct s s uppor t i ng H um phr i es ’ cl ai m s w er e know n dur i ng h is c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s, b u t H u m p h rie s d id n o t f ile a d ire c t ap p e a l an d it ap p e a rs h e d id notfi l e a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. B eca us e H um phr i es had r emedi es avai l abl e atthe t i m e of hi s convi ct i on, cor am nobi s r el i ef i s unavai l abl e. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. O s s er , 864 F. 2d 1056, 1061- 62 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( concl udi ng i s s ue r ai s ed i n cor am nobi s pet i t i on thatcoul d have be en r ai s ed on di r ectappea l w as w ai ved) . W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe err or s thatH um phr i es al l eges ar e notof a f undament al char act eras theypr i m ar i l ychal l enge the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s pl ea a nd do noti m pl i cat e the tri al cou rt ’s j uri sdi ct i on . A l tho ug h H um ph ri es ar gu es that he w ou l d b e able t o est abli sh 1 th a t co n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s o c c u rre d in h is c a se if th e D istric t C o u rt h a d g ra n ted h is m o ti o n fo r tran scripts, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing H u m p h ri es’ m o ti o n w h ere c o ra m n o b is re lie f

w a s p ro p e rl yd e n ie d . A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a s u b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w illa f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.