Court Opinion

ID: 9368650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 16:00:45.690691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.190493
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-3008                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                    1:00-cr-00045-ABJ-1
                                                      Filed On: February 6, 2023
United States of America,

             Appellee

      v.

Abdullah Mattocks, also known as Abdul-Nur
Zaid,

             Appellant

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      BEFORE:       Henderson, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the motion to
appoint counsel, it is

       ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. Because Mattocks is
not “seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28,” counsel may not be
appointed for him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). See Sadiq Olasunka
Adeleke v. United States, 550 F. App’x 237, 239 (5th Cir. 2013). Nor has he shown that
appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted. It is

        FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed
January 12, 2022, be affirmed. The district court properly denied appellant’s petition for
writ of coram nobis on the basis that appellant did not demonstrate fundamental error
warranting vacatur of his conviction for possession of a firearm by an individual who has
been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. See 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); United States v. Newman, 805 F.3d 1143, 1146 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Appellant does not dispute that at the time he possessed the firearm at issue in this
case, he had previously served more than one year in prison pursuant to a conviction in
the District of Columbia Superior Court. Under these circumstances, the district court
correctly determined that appellant had not shown fundamental error based on the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-3008                                                September Term, 2022

court’s failure to inform him at his plea hearing that, if he proceeded to trial, the
government would be required to prove “that he knew he belonged to the relevant
category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Rehaif v. United States, 139
S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019); see Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2097 (2021) (“In
a felon-in-possession case where the defendant was in fact a felon when he possessed
firearms, the defendant faces an uphill climb,” because “[i]f a person is a felon, he
ordinarily knows he is a felon.”). Nor has Mattocks demonstrated fundamental error
based on his argument that his conviction under § 922(g)(1) violated the Second
Amendment.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2