DLD-300                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 11-3065
                                      ___________

                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            v.

                              EDWIN RODRIGUEZ,
                                    Appellant
                      ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                             (D.C. Criminal No. 94-cr-00192)
                     District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel
                      ____________________________________

                   Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
                        Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  September 29, 2011

          Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

                                 (Filed: October 5, 2011)
                                        _________

                                       OPINION
                                       _________

PER CURIAM

       Edwin Rodriguez, a pro se inmate, appeals the order of the District Court denying

his petition for a writ of audita querela. Because we conclude that this appeal presents no

substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
                                             I.

       Following a 1996 jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, Edwin Rodriguez was convicted of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender to 360 months in prison. This Court

affirmed. See United States v. Rodriguez, 

(Table) (3d Cir. 1998) (No. 97-

1937). Rodriguez then filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

which the District Court denied after conducting an evidentiary hearing. We denied his

request for a certificate of appealability. (C.A. No. 01-3908.)

       Rodriguez has filed several additional post-conviction motions, including two

applications pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file a successive § 2255 motion, all of which

have been unsuccessful. On December 14, 2010, he filed a petition for a writ of audita

querela under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, in the District Court, claiming that he

was entitled to resentencing under United States v. Booker, 

(2005). The

District Court denied the motion on July 12, 2011. Rodriguez filed a timely notice of

appeal.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a district court’s

order granting or denying a petition for a writ of audita querela is plenary. See United

States v. Gamboa, 

, 494 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Grider v. Keystone Health Plan

Cent., Inc., 

, 328 (3d Cir. 2007) (exercising plenary review of injunctions

under All Writs Act).




                                             2
       We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Rodriguez may not seek

sentencing relief though a petition for a writ of audita querela. “Where a statute

specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All

Writs Act, that is controlling.” Massey v. United States, 

, 174 (3d Cir.

2009) (internal quotation omitted). A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper

avenue to challenge his sentence. 

that Rodriguez has already filed one such

motion, which was unsuccessful, as well as two unsuccessful applications pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244 for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Nevertheless,

Rodriguez “may not seek relief through a petition for a writ of audita querela on the basis

of his inability to satisfy the requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996.” 

appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.




                                               3