Dеfendant-appellant Enrique Fonseca-Martinez petitioned the district court, requesting that it exercise its power to issue the little-used cоmmon law writ of audita querela to vacate his 1987 conviction on a federal drug offense. The district court denied defendant’s petition and Fonseca-Mar-tinеz appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant, a thirty-six year old citizen of Mexico and legal resident of the United States, pleaded guilty in 1987 to one count of possessing heroin with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Appellant was sentеnced to three years imprisonment to be followed by a period of three years probation. Appellant served the prison sentence and was released. Subsequently, he was arrested again and convicted in Oregon state court on April 29, 1993 on a misdemeanor chargе of receipt of stolen auto parts.
Because of his 1987 drug conviction, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) entered an order of deportation against appellant. On May 27, 1993, appellant filed a petition for writ of audita querela in the federal district court in which he was convictеd in 1987 of the drug charge, seeking to have the conviction vacated. Appellant did not contend that the conviction was improper in аny respect. Rather, he sought to have it vacated solely on equitable grounds, arguing that, aside from that offense, he has been an upstanding rеsident and therefore deserved to be afforded a second chance by having the conviction expunged. The vacating of his federаl conviction might enable appellant to avoid deportation since it was on the basis of that conviction that he was ordered deported under § 241(a)(ll) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(ll), and the conviction rendered him ineligible for relief from deportation under INA § 212(e), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
The district court denied appellant’s petition for writ of
audita querela
on the ground that, as a matter of law, the writ may not issue to vacate an otherwise valid criminal conviction solely on equitable grounds.
II.STANDARD OF REVIEW
The question of whether a writ of
audita querela
may issue to vacate a criminal conviction solely on equitable grounds is a question of law that is reviewed
de novo
by the court of appeals.
United States v. Johnson,
III.DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND ON THE WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA
“ ‘Audita querela’ was a common law writ to afford relief to a judgment debtor against a judgment or execution because of some defense or discharge arising subsequent to the rendition of the judgment or the
*64
issue of the execution.” 11 Wright & Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2867, at 235 (1973). No statute expressly authorizes federal courts to grant relief in the form of a writ of
audita querela.
However, the Supreme Court has held thаt courts may issue writs lacking an express statutory basis pursuant to their general authority to issue common law writs under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
1
United States v. Morgan,
In the nineteenth century, federal courts regarded the writ as an available remedy, at least in civil cases.
See, e.g., Butler v. Eaton,
It had also been argued that in enacting the modern federal prisoner habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Congress intended that statute to be the exclusive avеnue for challenging federal convictions, and that the statute therefore implicitly abolished all other common law writs insofar as they applied to federal criminal convictions. However, in
Morgan
the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating “Nowhere in the history of Section 2255 do we find аny purpose to impinge upon prisoners’ rights of collateral attack upon their convictions.”
Morgan,
B. WHETHER THE WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA MAY ISSUE TO VACATE AN OTHERWISE VALID CRIMINAL CONVICTION SOLELY ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS
In this case, the district court denied relief on two separate grounds. First, the court held that a writ of audita querela may not, as a matter of law, issue to vacate an otherwise valid criminal conviction solely on equitable grounds. Second, the Court ruled that even if a writ of audita querela may issue on such grounds, the court declined to exercise its discretion tо grant such relief in this case. Appellant seeks reversal arguing (1) that the writ may issue on equitable grounds, and (2) that the equities of his ease are sufficiеntly compelling to warrant such relief.
In two reported eases, district courts have granted writs of
audita querela
to vacate federal criminal conviсtions solely on equitable grounds — that is, not based on any error in the conviction- — in order to protect defendants from adverse collatеral consequences.
See United States v. Ghebreziabher,
*65
However, every court of appeals to consider the question has ruled that, as a matter of law, the writ of
audita querela
is not available to vacate an otherwise valid conviction for solely equitable reasons.
See United States v. Johnson,
We conclude that in this ease it is not necessary for this cоurt to decide whether the writ may ever issue solely on equitable grounds. The court of appeals may affirm so long as there exists any ground, fairly supported in the record, that supports the district court’s ruling.
Golden Nugget, Inc. v. American Stock Exch, Inc.,
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictiоns and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
. The amended Rule 60(b) states, in pertinent part:
Writs of coram nobis, coram vdbis, audita que-rela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.