Case Information
*1 1081(L) USA UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER ʺ A PARTY CITING SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, City rd day June, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER,
GUIDO CALABRESI,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x
ERIC KLEIN, 1081(L) (Con)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent Appellee
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
FOR PETITIONER APPELLANT: HOWARD D. SIMMONS, ESQ., RESPONDENT APPELLEE: CHRISTOPHER CLORE, Assistant United Attorney (Brian R. Blais, Assistant Attorney, brief Joon H.
Kim, Acting Attorney *2 Southern District of New Consolidated appeals from District for Southern District of York (Cote,
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED of are AFFIRMED appellant Eric Klein, represented by counsel, of entered February March denial petitions for a writ error coram nobis On asserts ten error. assume parties ʹ familiarity facts, procedural history, issues appeal. review decision writ error coram nobis discretion. Foont Unites , F.3d ʺ writ error coram nobis extraordinary remedy, typically available only when habeas relief unwarranted because petitioner no longer custody. ʺ Kovacs 2014) (internal citation omitted). To obtain relief, petitioner must show 1) there circumstances compelling such action achieve justice, sound reasons exist failure seek appropriate relief, petitioner continues suffer legal consequences be remedied granting writ. ʺ Id. (quoting Foont Each *3 either procedurally barred or wholly lacking in merit or both, and, therefore, did its discretion in Klein ʹ s petitions.
We considered Klein ʹ s remaining arguments conclude they without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM court.
We also note on August 7, 2007, (Sand, barred filing without first obtaining court. See 2007 WL 2274254 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, Further, September 11, 2013, in summary order one ʹ s previous appeals, we observed that:
Appellant frequent in this Court, having instituted twenty ‐ five separate matters relating his 2005 criminal conviction, his attorney ʹ s performance during his criminal or 28 U.S.C. 2255 proceedings challenging sentence. explicitly dismissed seven these cases as frivolous. See U.S.C.A. dkt. Nos. 09 ‐ 182, 4587, 10 427, 10 3922. Moreover, in connection various matters in this Court, Appellant has filed numerous meritless appellate motions, has been extraordinarily reluctant accept this Court ʹ s adverse rulings, moving frequently rehearing Court ʹ s recall this Court ʹ s mandates. Finally, we note that, we affirmed Appellant ʹ direct barred Appellant filing criminal case first obtaining permission. Fed. App Oct. find that, engaging above practices, Appellant has repeatedly exceeded bounds tolerable conduct. Accordingly, hereby warned filing frivolous and/or conviction, attorney performance during course criminal *4 proceedings, will result imposition sanctions, including leave to file sanctions. In re Martin Trigona (recognizing that ʺ courts may resort to restrictive measures . [with respect to] litigants who abused their opportunities, ʺ including subjecting to leave court requirement respect to future filings ); Safir U.S. Lines, Inc. (Docket docket entry Despite sanction and our warning, counsel continued file Court. remind counsel may make violations subject counsel sanctions. COURT:
Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, Clerk