Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Howard HANEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-21
Citations: 285 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 07-10898
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Howard HANEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Howard HANEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10898
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 21, 2008.
Michael John Uhl, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Howard Haney, Ray Brook, NY, pro se.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Howard Haney, federal prisoner #22122-077, pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced as a career offender to 360 months in prison. He appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in which he asserted that the district court wrongly found him to be a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines in light of United States v. Cheramie, 51 F.3d 538 (5th Cir.1995). Ha ney has not established that his Cheramie claim constitutes a "gap" in the federal postconviction structure warranting the extraordinary writ. See United States v. Banda, 1 F.Sd 354, 356 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Reyes, 945 F.2d 862, 865 & n. 5 (5th Cir.1991); see also Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 211-14 (5th Cir.2000). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Haney also asks this court to recall the mandate on his direct appeal so that he may raise his Cheramie claim. Because Haney did not argue on direct appeal that his underlying conspiracy conviction cannot serve as a predicate offense for a career offender finding under the Guidelines, he is not entitled to a recall of the mandate. See In re Kunkle, 398 F.3d 683, 685 n. 2 (5th Cir.2005). Haney's motion is thus DENIED. Haney's motion for appointment of counsel is likewise DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.