United States v. Frederick Banks, 684 F. App'x 128

Banks was convicted in 2005 of mail fraud, criminal copyright infringement, uttering/possession of forged securities, and witness tampering, and received 60 months' imprisonment with 3 years' supervised release.
The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a § 2255 motion was denied with no COA granted.
In 2013 Banks completed a consecutive sentence from another case and was released to supervision; in 2014 his supervised release was revoked for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and he was sentenced to time served with no further supervised release.
An appeal from the revocation was dismissed for lack of a case or controversy to the extent it challenged the revocation itself.
On December 16, 2016 Banks filed a coram nobis petition which the district court denied; the instant appeal followed.
The Third Circuit applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear-error review to factual findings, and summarily affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief is available for attack on revoked supervised release.	Banks contends revocation has continuing consequences warranting relief.	The court previously held no collateral consequences exist from the revocation sufficient for coram nobis.	No, coram nobis relief is not available.
Whether Banks satisfies the threshold eligibility for coram nobis relief.	Banks seeks relief from the revocation proceeding.	Because there are no collateral consequences from the revocation, eligibility is lacking.	Threshold eligibility not met; the petition is denied.

Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2012) (coram nobis relief requires lack of custody and ongoing consequences)
Baptiste v. United States, 223 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000) (permissible to proceed in coram nobis without a COA in certain contexts)