Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Fiorani v., 07-1714 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1714 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1714 In Re: ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (1:98-cr-00340-JCC) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., petitions for a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1714 In Re: ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (1:98-cr-00340-JCC) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., petitions for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000). In his petition and supplement (“Errata”), Fiorani alleges that his conviction is unconstitutional and seeks an order from this court vacating his conviction. The relief sought by Fiorani is not available under § 1651, but is properly pursued through a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We note that Fiorani has previously filed a § 2255 motion in the district court, and must therefore obtain authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a successive motion before a second or successive motion may be considered by the district court. Accordingly, although we grant Fiorani leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the coram nobis petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer