United States v. Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta
443 F. App'x 685
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Ledesma-Cuesta was convicted in 2001 for importation and related offenses involving cocaine and for reentry after deportation, and we affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2003.
- In 2005, the District Court denied a §2555 motion to vacate his sentence, and we declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
- In 2010, Ledesma-Cuesta filed a motion construed as a reconsideration for a COA, which the District Court dismissed and we denied the COA.
- In May 2011, Ledesma-Cuesta filed a writ of audita querela under 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) challenging his base offense level; the District Court denied as not proper relief.
- The court holds that audita querela is available only where relief is not available by a specific statute, and §2255 is the proper vehicle; thus the District Court’s denial was correct and the appeal is summarily affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is audita querela available when a statute provides a remedy | Ledesma-Cuesta argues audita querela. | The District Court and the circuit hold that §2255 governs collateral challenges. | No; audita querela not available where §2255 provides remedy. |
| Whether the district court correctly denied audita querela as improper vehicle | Ledesma-Cuesta sought relief via audita querela for sentencing issues. | Relief must be sought under §2255, not audita querela. | Yes; district court correctly denied the audita querela. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (audita querela is residual post-conviction relief; not available where statute provides remedy)
- Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n Local 19 v. Herre Bros., Inc., 198 F.3d 391 (3d Cir. 1999) (district court retains jurisdiction over aspects not involving appeal; not directly on point but cited for procedure)