2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-24-2010

USA v. John Humphries

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4528

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. John Humphries" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1642.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1642
BLD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4528

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOHN M. HUMPHRIES,

Appellant

___________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 96-cr-00108)

District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

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

January 28, 2010

Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 24, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

John Humphries, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying his petition for a writ of error

coram nobis and motion for transcripts. We will affirm the District Court’s order.
1

In 1996, Humphries pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute oxycodone. He was sentenced to a term of 92 months in

prison and 36 months of supervised release. Humphries did not file a direct appeal. 

Humphries was released from federal custody in 2002.

In 2009, Humphries challenged his conviction and sentence under the All Writs

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, by filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in District

Court. Humphries claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things,

instructing him to make a deal with the prosecution that was not included in his plea

agreement. He also claimed that the trial court erred by accepting his plea and failing to

hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his plea. Humphries further claimed

that there was insufficient evidence supporting the factual basis for his plea and that his

due process rights were violated. Humphries also filed a motion seeking the transcripts

from his criminal proceedings. The District Court denied Humphries’ coram nobis

petition and denied his motion for transcripts as moot. This appeal followed. 

As recognized by the District Court, “coram nobis has traditionally been used to

attack convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer ‘in

custody’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189

(3d Cir. 2000). It is an extraordinary remedy and a court’s jurisdiction to grant relief is of

limited scope. Id. Use of the writ is appropriate to correct errors for which there was no

remedy available at the time of trial and where valid reasons exist for failing to seek relief
 Based on these conclusions, we need not address the District Court’s additional 1

finding that Humphries failed to show that he is suffering from continuing consequences

from his conviction. We assume without deciding that Humphries continues to suffer

adverse consequences even though he is no longer in custody.

2

sooner. United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 1989). In addition, the

error must go to the jurisdiction of the trial court and render the criminal proceedings

invalid. Id. 

We agree with the District Court that Humphries did not establish valid reasons for

failing to seek relief sooner. The facts supporting Humphries’ claims were known during

his criminal proceedings, but Humphries did not file a direct appeal and it appears he did

not file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Humphries had remedies

available at the time of his conviction, coram nobis relief is unavailable. See also United

States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1061-62 (3d Cir. 1988) (concluding issue raised in coram

nobis petition that could have been raised on direct appeal was waived). We also agree

with the District Court that the errors that Humphries alleges are not of a fundamental

character as they primarily challenge the voluntariness of his plea and do not implicate the

trial court’s jurisdiction. Although Humphries argues that he would be able to establish 1

that constitutional violations occurred in his case if the District Court had granted his

motion for transcripts, the District Court did not err in denying Humphries’ motion where

coram nobis relief was properly denied. 

Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will
affirm the District Court’s order.