Court Opinion

ID: 9947023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:25.156554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.113749
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2315

        In re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Richmond. (3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315         Doc: 9     Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant

        to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), contesting the validity of his 2018 conviction and seeking an order

        vacating his criminal judgment. A writ of error 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 the conviction

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

               Although Nabaya was released from prison in January 2022, he is still serving his

        supervised-release term. A defendant serving a supervised-release term is considered “in

        custody” for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d 233, 239

        (4th Cir. 2017). Because the more usual remedy is available, Nabaya cannot seek relief

        through a coram nobis petition. See Lesane, 40 F.4th at 197. Accordingly, we deny the

        petition for a writ of error coram nobis and deny Nabaya’s pending motions.

               Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

        (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Nabaya’s petition for writ of error coram nobis and related

        motions as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we

        conclude that Nabaya’s 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.

                                                                              PETITION DENIED

                                                    2