Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rene AGUILAR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. In re: Rene Aguilar, Jr., Movant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-30
Citations: 164 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: Nos. 04-8015, 05-7099
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rene AGUILAR, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. In re: Rene Aguilar, Jr., Movant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rene AGUILAR, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. In re: Rene Aguilar, Jr., Movant.
Nos. 04-8015, 05-7099.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 4, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2006.
Rene Aguilar, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Rene Aguilar, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and petitions this court for wit of audita querela. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability -will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aguilar has not made the requisite showing.
Turning to Aguilar's petition for writ of audita querela, we find that because § 2255 exists as a vehicle for collaterally attacking a conviction or sentence, the use of an extraordinary writ for the same purpose is inappropriate.
Accordingly, in appeal number 04-8015, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In appeal number 05-7099, we grant the application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for writ of audita querela. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
PETITION DENIED
We note that Aguilar's reliance on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), is misplaced, as that case is inapplicable to the sentencing claims Aguilar sought to raise in his motion. See United. States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 617 (7th Cir.), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 671,-L.Ed.2d-, 2005 WL 3027861 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2005) (No. 05-7031); United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir.2005).