Court Opinion

ID: 9913847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:40.656702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:04.765779
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6829      Doc: 16         Filed: 12/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6829

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        HARRINGTON CAMPBELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00232-CCB-1)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Harrington Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6829       Doc: 16        Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                 Harrington Campbell appeals the district court’s omnibus order denying without

        prejudice Campbell’s petitions for a writ of error coram nobis, as well as his motions for

        other forms of relief, and the court’s later order denying Campbell’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

        motion to alter or amend judgment. In relevant part, the court denied the coram nobis

        petitions after acknowledging that Campbell advanced arguments related to his convictions

        that were more properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that Campbell’s initial

        § 2255 motion was dismissed on timeliness grounds. Although Campbell was released

        from prison in June 2022, he is still serving his supervised-release term and, as such, is

        considered “in custody” for the purpose of § 2255. See United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d

        233, 239 (4th Cir. 2017). Because the more usual remedy is available, we agree with the

        district court that Campbell cannot seek relief from his convictions through a coram nobis

        petition. See United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2022). Finally,

        because Campbell did not advance any viable bases for his Rule 59(e) motion, we discern

        no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of that motion. See United States v. Taylor, 54

        F.4th 795, 802 (4th Cir. 2022) (providing standard of review).

                 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Campbell,

        No. 1:07-cr-00232-CCB-1 (D. Md. filed Apr. 24, 2023 & entered Apr. 25, 2023; May 9,

        2023).     We deny Campbell’s motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) and

        supplemental motion for a COA; for transcripts at government expense; and to allow the

        docket to reflect that the district court denied a COA in this case. We dispense with oral

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6829      Doc: 16        Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                    AFFIRMED

                                                    3