Edward Egan, Sr., No. 09-1575 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1575 In Re: EDWARD JAMES EGAN, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (7:07-cv-00509-gec-mfu) Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward James Egan, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward James Egan, Sr., a Virginia inmate, petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006). Egan challenges his 2004 Virginia convictions for forcible sodomy, rape, and inanimate object penetration and the district court s 2008 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The writ of error coram nobis may not be used to set See, e.g., Finkelstein v. Spitzer, aside a state conviction. 455 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2006); Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003); Lowery v. McCaughtry, 954 F.2d 422, 423 (7th Cir. 1992); Sinclair v. (5th Cir. 1982); Thomas (4th Cir. 1964); (10th Cir. 1962). court s v. 679 Cunningham, Rivenburgh Louisiana, 335 v. Utah, F.2d 513, 514 67, 69 F.2d 299 F.2d 842, 843 With respect to his challenge to the district disposition of his § 2254 petition, Egan could raised his claims in a direct appeal to this court. have Coram nobis, however, is not a substitute for direct appeal, and the writ will available. not lie where there is another adequate remedy See United States v. Darnell, 716 F.2d 479, 481 & n.5 (7th Cir. 1983); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1965). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of error coram 2 nobis and deny Egan s motions for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel. 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.