USA v. Few, No. 08-50419 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 08-50419 Document: 00511075353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-50419 Summary Calendar April 9, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LAWRENCE W FEW, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CR-1195-2 No. 3:06-CV-68 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lawrence Few has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court s denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis in which he challenges the validity of his conviction for making a false material statement to a federal agent. Few was sentenced to two years of probation, with 90 days of home confinement, a fine of $2000, and a special assessment of $100. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 08-50419 Document: 00511075353 Page: 2 No. 08-50419 Date Filed: 04/09/2010 Although Few originally characterized his pleading as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he acknowledges that he is not entitled to challenge his conviction under that provision because he was not in federal custody when he filed his pleading. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). He has therefore waived that claim and is not required to obtain a COA for it. There is no requirement to obtain a COA in order to appeal the denial of a petition for a writ of coram nobis. United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005); Rodriguez v. Johnson, No. 00-50225, 2000 WL 1901607, *1 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000). Treating Few s filing as an appeal of the district court s denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ. We have previously determined on direct appeal that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury s finding that Few made a false representation to the agent. See United States v. Few, No. 0250832, 2003 WL 1202811 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished); 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Few has failed to overcome the presumption that the underlying criminal proceedings were correct, and he has not shown a fundamental error that resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998); Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). 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.
