587 F. App'x 83
4th Cir.2014Background
- Walton appeals district court orders denying his §2255 relief petition and, alternatively, a writ of audita querela.
- He also challenges the district court’s post-judgment denial of a clerical-error correction.
- The panel found no reversible error in denying the audita querela relief.
- The panel also found no abuse of discretion in denying relief under Rule 36 and Rule 60(a) because alleged clerical errors were substantively harmless.
- The district court’s dismissal of Walton’s motion as an unauthorized, successive §2255 motion was deemed non-appealable without a COA, which Walton did not obtain.
- Walton’s notice of appeal and pleadings were construed as an application to file a second or successive §2255 motion, which the court denied authorization for.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audita querela denial proper? | Walton argues for audita querela relief. | Government contends no reversible error in denial. | No reversible error; denial affirmed. |
| Clerical-error relief under Rule 36/60(a)? | Walton asserts errors affect judgment. | Errors are harmless and do not affect judgment. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
| Appealability of unauthorized, successive §2255 dismissal? | Walton challenges dismissal on the merits. | COA is required to appeal from such dismissal. | COA required; appeal regarding this issue dismissed. |
| Authorization to file a second or successive §2255? | Walton seeks permission to file a successive motion. | No basis satisfied for authorization. | Authorization denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2010) (audita querela standard and availability considerations)
- Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (audita querela grounds and related standards)
- Pfizer Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2005) (harmless-error standard for clerical corrections)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (coherence on certificate of appealability standards)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (reasonable jurists standard for COA on merits)
- Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004) (COA required to appeal from dismissal of habeas petition as unauthorized and successive)
- United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (authorization requirement for successive §2255 motions)