United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on Defendant's pro se Petition
for Writ of Coram Nobis “to remedy the collateral
consequences of his criminal conviction.” ECF No. 346.
In his motion, Defendant argues his prosecution was
“based on political revenge, corruption, extortion,
civil rights violations, bigotry and intolerance of powerful
government officials . . .” Id.
a remedy of last resort, the writ of error coram nobis is
granted only where an error is of the most fundamental
character and there exists no other available remedy.”
United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th
Cir. 2012). The writ is narrowly limited to
“extraordinary cases presenting circumstances
compelling its use to achieve justice.” United
States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009); see
also Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429
(1996) (“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a situation
in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis
would be necessary or appropriate.”). A petitioner
seeking this relief must show the following: “(1) a
more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist
for not attacking the conviction earlier; (3) adverse
consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy
the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4)
the error is of the most fundamental character.”
Akinsade, 686 F.3d at 252.
argues he filed this Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
“to be the remedy to correct the original judgment
because of the extreme flagrant misconduct of the complete
investigation and prosecution in this case.” ECF No.
346 at 3. He alleges his “political enemies paid law
enforcement to investigate and prosecute me because of an
ideological differences [sic] and it shows these same
powerful individuals and others involved in a criminal
conspiracy to achieve their goals.” Id. He
requests the court vacate his convictions “and not
dismiss [this petition] with prejudice because the subject of
gamecocks is so miniscule in the scheme of life, ” and
“to issue an opinion as to why a person can't
participate in this activity on their private property while
not having an affect [sic] on society as a whole.”
Id. at 39.
fails to meet the requirements for this extraordinary writ.
Although more typical remedies are not available to Defendant
because he is no longer in custody and has completed his term
of supervised release, he should have brought his claim earlier.
He filed a § 2255 motion in March of 2016, raising
essentially the same arguments. ECF No. 323. That motion was
dismissed as untimely, as it was filed more than a year after
his conviction was final and no grounds for equitable tolling
were presented. ECF No. 337. “The remedy afforded by
§ 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely
because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under
that provision or because an individual is procedurally
barred from filing a § 2255 motion.” In re Vial,
115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (en
banc). Once again, Defendant has failed to show
valid reasons for not attacking his convictions on these
grounds in a timely manner.
also fails to show adverse consequences exist from his
convictions “sufficient to satisfy the case or
controversy requirement of Article III.” Defendant
argues his convictions should be vacated, yet his Petition
discusses only how gamecock fighting should not be an illegal
activity and that he was singled out for prosecution.
However, Defendant's convictions for violation of the
animal fighting statute were overturned by the Fourth
Circuit, see ECF No. 284, and dismissed on remand (ECF No.
292). His only remaining convictions are for conspiracy to
engage in an illegal gambling business, a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371, and two counts of aiding and abetting an
illegal gambling business, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1955 and 2. See ECF No. 304. Therefore, his
vacated convictions under the animal fighting statute do not
carry adverse consequences sufficient to raise an Article III
case or controversy, and he has failed to argue any other
grounds showing such adverse consequences (other than the
mere existence of his felony convictions) exist.
reasons above, Defendant's Petition for Writ of Coram
Nobis is denied.
 The current Petition was filed in
January 2018, nearly six months after Defendant's term of
supervised release expired in July 2017.
 Although Vial considered the
filing of a § 2241 motion, not a Petition for Writ of
Coram Nobis, the Fourth Circuit's analysis of a §
2255 motion is instructive here due to the requirement of
valid reasons for not ...