Case Name: William Keith SCHANCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-23
Citations: 384 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 09-13215
Parties: William Keith SCHANCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
William Keith SCHANCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-13215
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 23, 2010.
William Keith Schanck, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Keith Schanck, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his petition for a writ of audita querela under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The district court construed Schanck's petition as a motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and denied the motion as successive. We affirm.
Schanck was convicted of four drug crimes and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. This Court affirmed his convictions. United States v. Schanck, 120 F.3d 273 (11th Cir.1997). Schanck later moved to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied. Schanck requested a certificate of appealability, which both the district court and this Court denied.
Schanck petitioned for a writ of audita querela. Schanck argued that his sentence of life imprisonment was unconstitutional under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the petition.
The district court did not err by dismissing Schanck's petition. Because Schanck "is collaterally attacking his sentence as violating the United States Constitution, the proper avenue of relief is [section] 2255." United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir.2005). Schanck previously filed a motion to vacate and failed to obtain permission from this Court to file a successive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). "Without authorization, the district court lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider [Schanck's] second or successive petition." Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.2003).
The dismissal of Schanck's petition for a writ of audita querela is AFFIRMED.