IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10856

Summary Calendar

CHARLES C. NOWDEN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-392

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles C. Nowden, former federal prisoner # 29172-077 and current 

Texas prisoner # 01780278, appeals the denial of his writ of error coram nobis 

where he sought to challenge the validity of his 1996 guilty-plea conviction of 

bank fraud and aiding and abetting. He argues that he is suffering lingering 

civil disabilities from his 1996 federal conviction and that his 1996 federal 

conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he 

 

* 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

August 20, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10856 Document: 00515084294 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2019
No. 18-10856

2

contends that counsel failed to investigate the facts or conduct discovery, failed 

to research the law, and failed to give competent legal advice and properly 

advise him of the elements of the offense. Further, he argues that the 

Government suppressed evidence showing that he was not involved in the 

offense. Nowden has filed a motion to supplement his brief, arguing that the 

indictment failed to establish federal jurisdiction. The motion to supplement 

his appellate brief is granted.

In reviewing the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, this court reviews 

the district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo,

and the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of 

discretion.” Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 

2008), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1046 (2010). “The writ of coram 

nobis is an extraordinary remedy” that may be used by “a petitioner no longer 

in custody who seeks to vacate a criminal conviction in circumstances where 

the petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a consequence of the 

conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient magnitude to justify 

the extraordinary relief.” United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 

2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The writ is not a 

substitute for an appeal and “will issue only when no other remedy is available 

and when sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate earlier 

relief.” United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal 

quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).

Nowden’s arguments before this court consist of claims that he could 

have raised in his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. As such, he is not entitled 

to coram nobis relief. See Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 535. Furthermore, Nowden 

has not provided this court with sound reasons justifying his failure to seek 

appropriate relief earlier. See Dyer, 136 F.3d at 422. Because Nowden has not 

 Case: 18-10856 Document: 00515084294 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2019
No. 18-10856

3

demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by denying his writ 

of error coram nobis, see Santos-Sanchez, 548 F.3d at 330, the judgment of the 

district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT GRANTED.

 Case: 18-10856 Document: 00515084294 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/20/2019