United States v. Frederick Banks, 694 F. App'x 61

In 2004 a jury convicted Frederick Banks of mail fraud, criminal copyright infringement, uttering/possession of a forged security, and witness tampering; this Court affirmed in United States v. Vampire Nation.
Banks served his sentence and completed supervised release; he later pursued multiple post-conviction remedies (§2255, coram nobis, Rule 60(b)) without success.
In February 2017 Banks filed coram nobis and audita querela petitions claiming he was incompetent at the 2004 trial and that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue competency despite Banks’s requests; he pointed to a 2016 competency finding in a separate case.
The District Court denied relief and Banks appealed; this Court exercised summary disposition under its internal operating procedures.
The Court treated coram nobis and audita querela as extraordinary remedies that cannot be used if the petitioner lacked a sound reason for delay or if statutory remedies (e.g., §2255) could raise the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of coram nobis to challenge competency at 2004 trial	Banks: newly discovered delusional disorder and 2016 incompetency finding show he was incompetent in 2004 and had good cause for delay	Govt: Banks knew or suspected competency issues in 2004 and offers no sound reason for failing to seek relief earlier	Denied — coram nobis not available because Banks failed to show sound reasons for late challenge; 2016 finding does not prove 2004 incompetency (affirmed)
Use of audita querela to circumvent §2255/AEDPA	Banks: audita querela can fill gaps to vindicate constitutional errors like incompetency and ineffective assistance	Govt: Claims are cognizable, or at least potentially cognizable, under §2255; audita querela cannot bypass AEDPA gatekeeping	Denied — audita querela inappropriate where §2255 applies and petitioner cannot use it to evade AEDPA restrictions
Request for evidentiary hearing on competency claim	Banks: hearing needed to develop evidence of incompetency and counsel’s failure to act	Govt: No factual basis warranting a hearing given the record and procedural defects	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion in refusing an evidentiary hearing

United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1989) (coram nobis available post‑custody for errors lacking earlier remedies and requiring sound reasons for delay)
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming Banks’s convictions)
Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming requirement of showing sound reasons for delay in coram nobis relief)
Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (audita querela cannot be used to circumvent statutory post‑conviction procedures)