Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Earl CULLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-01
Citations: 264 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 07-60251
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Earl CULLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Earl CULLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-60251
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 1, 2008.
Billups S. Allen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Missisippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Willie Earl Culley, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Willie Earl Culley, federal prisoner #02481-043, appeals the district court's denial of coram nobis relief. In 1996 a jury convicted Culley of drug related crimes. The 1996 conviction was later vacated. In 2000 Culley pleaded guilty and was convicted of use of a communications facility during commission of a crime. Culley argues, inter alia, that his convictions should be vacated due to irregularities in the district court proceedings, that he should be allowed to appeal despite his appeal waiver, that he suffers civil disabili ties, and that there were jurisdictional defects in his proceedings.
Regarding the 1996 conviction, although Culley refers to civil disabilities, he does so only generally. Culley fails to demonstrate that he is suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the vacated 1996 conviction. He has therefore failed to meet the standard for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir.1998). Regarding the 2000 conviction, the district court determined that to the extent that Culley sought to challenge his 2000 conviction, the motion was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Culley fails to address the district court's conclusion on this issue and has therefore abandoned this issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).
The district court's judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.