US v. Bernard Gibson, Sr., No. 10-6764 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6764 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals the district court s denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. audita querela is not available to a We have [A] writ of petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.[A.] § 2255 [(West Supp. 2010)]. United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). The fact that Gibson cannot proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this court to file conclusion. a successive motion does not alter this See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2007) ( [T]he statutory limits on second or successive habeas petitions do not create a gap in the post-conviction landscape amended on that can other be filled grounds Accordingly, we affirm. by with 530 the F.3d common 1183 law (9th writs. ), Cir. 2008). 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. AFFIRMED 2

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.