Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roderick Gene REED, also known as Rod, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-14
Citations: 378 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 09-10989
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roderick Gene REED, also known as Rod, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roderick Gene REED, also known as Rod, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10989
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 14, 2010.
Roderick Gene Reed, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Gene Reed, 46988-019, was sentenced to an enhanced term of life in prison following his convictions for possession of cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute, maintaining a residence for purposes of distributing drugs, and possession of a firearm by a felon. This court affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. McBrown, No. 96-11491, 1998 WL 413981 (5th Cir. June 22, 1998) (unpublished). Reed has been unsuccessful in seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Reed also filed an unsuccessful motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) due to the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Reed filed a motion requesting that he be granted a new sentencing proceeding by writ of error coram nobis. Reed contends that the enhancement information filed by the Government was defective and that the district court thus lacked jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment. The district court found that relief pursuant to a writ of coram nobis was not available because Reed was in custody.
It is undisputed that Reed was in custody when he sought coram nobis relief and is still in custody. The district court did not err in finding that the writ of coram nobis is not an avenue of relief available to him. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under dle limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.