Filed: Jan. 30, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7796 In Re: WILLIAM WISE MURRAY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (CR-93-470) Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: January 30, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Wise Murray, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Wise Murray, a feder
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7796 In Re: WILLIAM WISE MURRAY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (CR-93-470) Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: January 30, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Wise Murray, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Wise Murray, a federa..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7796
In Re: WILLIAM WISE MURRAY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.
(CR-93-470)
Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: January 30, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Wise Murray, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Wise Murray, a federal inmate, petitions for a writ of
error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 (1994), seeking (1)
vacatur of his conviction on the ground that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to convict him, and (2) an order to direct the
district court to provide him with a copy of the trial transcript.
A writ of error coram nobis is available only when the petitioner
is not in custody. See, e.g., United States v. Sawyer,
239 F.3d
31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001). Because Murray is in federal custody and
has filed a prior motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001), he may not circumvent the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255
and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), by filing this pe-
tition. United States v. Noske,
235 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, we deny Murray leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris, deny his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and deny
his motion for injunction and bail. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in
the materials before the court, and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2