USA v. Nathaniel ColemanUSA v. Nathaniel Coleman
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-1937
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
NATHANIEL COLEMAN,
also known as BOO TEE COLEMAN,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2:85-cr-000195-001)
District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sánchez
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 15, 2026
Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 5, 2026)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
of error coram nobis. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. We
will affirm.
In 1985, after the murder of a witness who was to testify at Coleman’s trial on
drug charges, Coleman was tried on charges of conspiracy through force and intimidation
to cause a government witness to be unavailable to testify at a federal criminal trial,
life imprisonment, and his judgment of sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. See
United States v. Coleman, 862 F.2d 455 (3d Cir. 1988). Coleman’s numerous attempts
over the years to challenge the conviction and sentence were all unsuccessful. See, e.g.,
C.A. Nos. 91-1752 (affirming denial of § 2255 motion), 99-1899 (§ 2244 application
denied), 17-2764 (same). Coleman was released on parole in 2019, and in 2023, the
District Court granted his motion for early termination of his supervised release.
In 2024, Coleman filed this petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition
argues that he is entitled to relief based on information he alleges he received in 1996 in
response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, from which he “learned that
the government withheld exculpatory evidence during both trials including [a]
fingerprints report that did not match Coleman or anyone associated with him.” ECF No.
296 at 4. The District Court denied the petition. Coleman timely appealed, and the
Government has moved for summary affirmance.
district court’s decision if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6; Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011)
(per curiam). We exercise de novo review over the District Court’s denial of Coleman’s
coram nobis petition. See United States v. Rhines, 640 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam). “A writ of error coram nobis is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that may only be
issued in the most limited of circumstances.” United States v. De Castro, 49 F.4th 836,
842 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009)). To obtain
coram nobis relief, all of the following elements must be met: “‘the petitioner (1) is no
longer in custody; (2) suffers continuing consequences from the purportedly invalid
convictions; (3) provides sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier; (4) had no
available remedy at the time of trial; and (5) asserted error(s) of a fundamental kind.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Ragbir, 950 F.3d 54, 62 (3d Cir. 2020)).
The District Court correctly denied Coleman’s petition. Coleman’s petition is
based on information he allegedly received over 25 years ago—information which he has
previously used, without success, to seek authorization from this Court to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See C.A. No. 99-1899. As the District Court correctly
explained, Coleman “may not resort to a writ of error coram nobis simply because he
cannot meet the standard for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion.” Rhines, 640
Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.