Opinion ID: 217528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facts

Text: In 1989, Thornbrugh was convicted of three counts of armed bank robbery, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (b), and three counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced him to 543 months’ imprisonment, and he has been serving time ever since. Over the next two decades, Thornbrugh launched a series of challenges to his sentence. On direct appeal, we initially affirmed the district court’s rulings, but we then reversed sitting en banc. United States v. Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Abreu, 962 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir. 1992) (en banc). We held that enhanced sentences for second or subsequent convictions under § 924(c) are only appropriate where the second offense is committed after a judgment of conviction on the prior § 924(c) offense. Abreu, 962 F.2d at 1449–55. On remand, the district court resentenced Thornbrugh to 442 months’ imprisonment. Soon thereafter, however, the Supreme Court considered the same issue and reached the opposite conclusion. The Court held that § 924(c) does not require that a defendant’s previous sentence become final before he can be subject -2- to an enhanced sentence for subsequent convictions. Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993). The Supreme Court subsequently vacated our en banc decision and remanded in light of Deal. United States v. Abreu, 508 U.S. 935 (1993). On remand, we again sat en banc and affirmed the reasoning behind Thornbrugh’s original, enhanced sentence; and in a separate opinion, we vacated Thornbrugh’s 442-month sentence, ruled that the district court’s initial downward departure was predicated on an incorrect application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Abreu, 997 F.2d 825 (10th Cir. 1993) (en banc); United States v. Thornbrugh, 7 F.3d 1471 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Thornbrugh, No. 92-5145, 1993 WL 413668 (10th Cir. Oct. 18, 1993). On remand, consistent with our instructions, the district court sentenced Thornbrugh to 610 months’ imprisonment. Thornbrugh appealed this sentence, and we affirmed. United States v. Thornbrugh, No. 94-5118, 1995 WL 216924 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 1995). Thornbrugh then sought collateral relief via a § 2255 motion, but the district court denied him relief and we denied him a certificate of appealability. United States v. Thornbrugh, No. 98-5146, 1999 WL 716885 (10th Cir. Sept. 15, 1999). Thereafter, we twice denied Thornbrugh permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. -3- In October 2010, Thornbrugh again sought collateral relief in the district court—this time via a motion seeking writs of coram nobis and audita querela, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. In his motion, Thornbrugh argued the original sentencing judge lacked authority to enhance his sentence under § 924(c), and he also sought relief under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court appropriately found Thornbrugh’s motion was a habeas petition in disguise, and that he simply restated claims that were previously considered and rejected on direct and collateral review. Accordingly, the district court denied Thornbrugh’s motion, and he now appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, because Thornbrugh appeals from a final judgment.