Case Name: Robert HAUGHIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-25
Citations: 693 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 17-6424
Parties: Robert HAUGHIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Robert HAUGHIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6424
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 25, 2017
Robert D. Haughie, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert D. Haughie appeals the district court's order construing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis as a petition for a writ of mandamus and denying relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012) can be used to vacate a conviction when there is a fundamental error resulting in conviction and no other means of relief is available. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-11, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1074-75 (4th Cir. 1988). Haughie failed to establish the grounds needed to obtain relief under this writ. To the extent that Haughie sought mandamus relief, the district court correctly stated that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg ay., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and do not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Disk of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED