P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60380 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. TE RR AN CE CA RV EL L G U I N N , a l s o kno w n a s Te r r e nc e Carve l lG ui nn D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

U SD C N o. 5: 99- C R
- 8- 1 B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * T errance C arvel lG u i n n seeks l eave t o p roceed i n for m a pa u peri s ( IFP ) on appealf

r om t he deni alof

hi s w r i tof

err orc or am nobi s c hal l engi ng hi s 1999 g u ilty -p le a co n v ic tio n fo rp o s s e s s io n o f afir e a r m b yafe lo n . To pro c ee d I FP , a li t i gantm ustbeec onom i c al l y e l i gibl e, and hi s appeal m u s t n o t b e fr iv o lo u s . Carson v. Pol ley , 6 89 F. 2d5 62 , 5 86 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 2) . The w ri tof err or coram n obi s “ i s an extr aordi n ary rem edy ava i l able t o a peti t i on er United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60380

2 n o l on ger i n cust odyw h o seeks t o vacate a cri m i n al convic t i on i n circum st an ces w he r e t he pet i t i o ne rc an de m o ns t r at e c ivildi s ab i l i t i e s a s ac o ns e que nc e o f t he crim i n a lcon victi on , an dth a t th e ch a l l en ge de rror i s of su ff i ci en t m a gn i tu d e to j u stif yt h e ex trao rd i n a ryreli ef. ” Ji m e nezv. Trom i nski , 91 F . 3 d76 7 , 76 8 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 6 ). T h e w ri t i s a va i l a b l e “ on l y to co rrect erro rs resu l ti n g ina co m p l ete m i sca rriag e of j u sti ce.” I d. G u in n argu es t h at he i s entit l ed to such reli ef b eca u se h i s attorn eypr ov i d ed i n effective a ssistan ce b y fail i n g to f i l e a m oti on to s u p p r e s s o ra2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . H e c o n te n d s t h a t th e r e is are a s o n a b le proba bi l i t y t h at s u ch m ot i on s w ou l d h ave been deci ded i n hi s favor. A s p a rt of an ag ree m en t w i th the G ov ern m en t, G u i n n w a ive dthe ri gh t t o ap pe alhi s c o nvic t i o n o rs e nt e nc e , as w e l la s hi s r i ghtt o pur s ue r e l i e f pur s uant t o § 225 5 or i n an y postc on vi ct i on proceedi n g. W e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourt t hatG ui nn has w aive d hi s r i ghtt o pur s ue po s t c o nvi c t i o n r e l i e f. Eve n if G ui nn coul d est abli sh t h at h e p reservedthe ri gh tto b ri n g t h e p resent w ri t , he h as not r ai s e d ano nf

r ivo l o us i s s ue r e ga r di ng w he t he rhe w as ent i t l e d t o r e l i e f. Gui nn of fer s no ar gum ent or fac t ual bas i s on w hi c h a m ot i on t o suppress o r a § 2255 m o t i o n c o ul d ha ve b e e n f i l e d. H i s c o nc l us i o nal assert i ons do no ts upp o r ta ny c la im fo re x tr a o r d in a r yre lie f. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Dyer , 13 6 F . 3 d41 7 , 42 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 8 ) (ho l d i n g th a t ap p ell a n t ha dn ot m a d e a sh ow i n g “w i th the cl a ri ty requ i si t e f

or co ra m n o b isr e l i e f ” ) . Ac c o r di n gl y, G ui nn ha s no tpr e s e nt e d a n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. S eeHo w ar d v . Ki ng , 70 7 F . 2 d21 5 , 21 9 -20 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). Th e m ot i on f

orl eave t o pro c ee d I FP on appeali s D E N I E D , and t he appea l is D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 THC IR . R . 42. 2.