United States v. Rhines, 640 F.3d 69, 3rd Cir. (2011)
United States v. Rhines, 640 F.3d 69, 3rd Cir. (2011)
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-4077
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GARY RHINES, a/k/a DERRICK UPSHAW,
a/k/a GARY R. ALLEN, a/k/a ROBERY CAMBY,
Gary Rhines,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00310)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 31, 2011
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 4, 2011)
___________________________________
We also note that coram nobis relief was granted in Bruce v. Ebert on account of
unique circumstances not present in Rhines case. Bruce filed a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the district court for the district in which he was
incarcerated (M.D. Pa.). That court transferred the habeas petition to the district court
4
and have no bearing upon the standard in this Circuit that writs of error coram nobis are
generally not available to those in custody. See, e.g., Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 105-06.
We also agree that Rhines has not asserted a fundamental error that
rendered his trial invalid. He claims that he was denied the opportunity to impeach the
officers with the fact of their indictment and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
discover this. The officers were indicted about five years after Rhines trial and, to the
extent we can discern from the material Rhines submitted, for actions apparently
unrelated to Rhines case. Rhines has offered nothing but speculation that the 2007
charges against the officers prove that they fabricated evidence and gave perjured
testimony at his trial or that impeachment would have resulted in a not guilty verdict
despite the other evidence against him. Furthermore, we note that Rhines has already
attempted to raise these claims in a second motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which we
denied him authorization to file (C.A. 10-2438). Rhines may not resort to a writ of error
coram nobis simply because he cannot meet the standards for filing a second or
successive 2255 motion. See Baptiste, 223 F.3d at 189-90.
There being no substantial question presented by Rhines appeal, we will
summarily affirm the District Courts order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; IOP 10.6.
that sentenced him (W.D. Va.) because Bruce was challenging the validity of his
conviction. The sentencing court concluded that Bruce was entitled to 2241 relief for
one of his convictions, but the court could not grant the relief pursuant to 2241 because
the warden of the prison in which Bruce was incarcerated was outside the jurisdiction of
the court. The court therefore resorted to a writ of error coram nobis to grant Bruce his
remedy. See 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112782, at *2-3, *12-15.
5