Case Name: In re: Reginald L. FRAZIER, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-30
Citations: 101 F. App'x 900
Docket Number: Nos. 04-6194, 04-6195, 04-6196
Parties: In re: Reginald L. FRAZIER, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 900–901

Head Matter:
In re: Reginald L. FRAZIER, Petitioner.
Nos. 04-6194, 04-6195, 04-6196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2004.
Decided: June 30, 2004.
Reginald L. Frazier, Petitioner pro se.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
These three original proceedings, filed in this court by Reginald L. Frazier, have been consolidated for consideration. In No. 04 — 6194, Frazier seeks relief through a petition for coram nobis, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000), and the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). He asks for the refund of all fines and fees paid to the North Carolina State Bar Council, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and this court, along with one hundred times those amounts as a sanction. He also requests reinstatement of his social security benefits. As neither coram nobis nor the § 2254 habeas statute can provide the relief Frazier seeks, we deny the petition.
No. 04-6195 and No. 04-6196 seem to be untimely petitions for rehearing of our decisions in In re Frazier, No. 03-6701, 2003 WL 21733141 (4th Cir. July 28, 2003) (unpublished), and In re Frazier, No. 03-1382, 2003 WL 1958771 (4th Cir. Apr.28, 2003) (unpublished). As these final decisions are not subject to such attack, see Fed. R.App. P. 40(a)(1), we deny the petitions.
Although we grant Frazier leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each case, we deny his motions for writ of coram nobis and writ of habeas corpus. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED