Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Sr., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-03
Citations: 389 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 10-6764
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Sr., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Sr., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6764.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2010.
Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. "[A] writ of audita querela is not available to a petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.[A.] § 2255 [ (West Supp.2010) ]." United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.2001) (same). The fact that Gibson cannot proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this court to file a successive motion does not alter this conclusion. See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2007) ("[T]he statutory limits on second or successive habeas petitions do not create a 'gap' in the post-conviction landscape that can be filled with the common law writs."), amended on other grounds by 530 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.