Court Opinion

ID: 9961889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:34.756675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:09.450196
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7154      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7154

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GERALD LEE BANKS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00034-FL-2)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gerald Lee Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7154      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Gerald Lee Banks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order construing

        his petition for a writ of error coram nobis as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion and dismissing it on that basis. * Banks claims that the court erred in construing his

        petition as a § 2255 motion and that he can seek relief in a petition for writ of error coram

        nobis because he has no other available remedies.           However, coram nobis is an

        extraordinary remedy available only when the movant demonstrates a fundamental error

        for which a more usual remedy is not available and that he had valid reasons for not

        attacking his convictions earlier. United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 197 (2022). And

        here, Banks is in federal custody, so the more usual remedy for challenging the validity of

        his convictions—a § 2255 motion—is available. See id. Furthermore, because Banks

        could have raised the challenge he asserted in his petition on direct appeal or in his first

        § 2255 motion but did not do so, he has not shown that valid reasons exist for not contesting

        his convictions earlier. See id. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly

        construed Banks’ petition as a successive § 2255 motion. We therefore affirm the district

        court’s order.

               Additionally, consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

        200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Banks’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an

        application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that

               *
                  A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s
        jurisdictional dismissal of Banks’ petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion.
        See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7154         Doc: 7     Filed: 04/19/2024       Pg: 3 of 3

        Banks’ claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore

        deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

              We dispense with oral 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