STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Writ of Error Audita Querela, filed pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 by Clarence Robinson Jr. Record document number 122. The United States of America filed an opposition.
Petitioner was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Petitioner was sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons, the sentence to be served consecutive to a 465 month term of imprisonment imposed by the Eastern District of Texas. Judgment was entered on October 19, 1995.
Petitioner's Conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States of America v. Clarence Robinson, Jr. 99 F.3d 1136 (5th Cir. 1996).
On October 20, 1997, the petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence.
On April 8, 2011, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On March 21, 2012, the petitioner filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.
On June 6, 2014, the petitioner filed this Writ of Error Audita Querela pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 asserting the following grounds for relief: (1) the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the name of a stipulated prior conviction in violation of Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644 (1997); and (2) his sentence was imposed in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 22, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).
No evidentiary hearing is required. Petitioner's Writ of Error Audita Querela should be denied.
"The writ audita querela permits a defendant to obtain relief against a judgment because of some legal defense arising after the judgment." United States v. Banda, 1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1993). See also United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484, 489 (5th Cir. 2010) (a writ of audita querela is used to challenge a judgment that was correct at the time it was rendered but which is made infirm by matters that arose after its rendition). The writ of audita querela is only available where the legal objection raised cannot be brought pursuant to any other post-conviction remedy. Id. at 488.
A prisoner may not seek a writ of audita querela if he may seek redress under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Johnson, 350 Fed.Appx. 872, 873 (5th Cir. 2009). The fact that a movant cannot meet the requirements for bringing a successive § 2255 motion does not render the § 2255 remedy unavailable. Id.; Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2010); Slaughter v. United States, 379 Fed. Appx. 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissial of writ of audita querela because remedy for Booker claim was under § 2255 and petitioner has not sought leave to file a successive § 2255 motion); United States v. Mason, 131 Fed.Appx. 440, 441 (5th Cir. 2005)(same).
Regardless of how the petitioner labeled his pleading, it is a collateral attack on the validity of his conviction and sentence cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner has not show that he obtained the authorization required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a successive § 2255 motion. That a movant cannot meet the requirements for bringing a successive § 2255 motion does not render the § 2255 remedy unavailable. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir.2000). Having failed to show that the § 2255 remedy is unavailable, the petitioner cannot establish that he is entitled to relief pursuant to a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Ford, 372 Fed.Appx. 545, 545-546 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Johnson, 350 Fed.Appx. 872, 873 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Cornett, 350 Fed.Appx. 849, 850 (5th Cir. 2009).
It is the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the petitioner's Writ of Error Audita Querela be denied.
