USA v. James Putnam, No. 16-60165 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-60165 Document: 00513957589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60165 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED April 18, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES FRANKLIN PUTNAM, also known as Tony Martinez, also known as Bobby Spiers, also known as Bob Watson, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:97-CR-3-1 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Franklin Putnam appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Putnam has completed his term of imprisonment but is still serving the five-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction of hostage taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60165 Document: 00513957589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 No. 16-60165 At all times, this court must be assured of its jurisdiction and the district court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Putnam is still subject to an unexpired term of supervised release, he is “in custody” and ineligible for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Scruggs, 691 F.3d 660, 662 n.1 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Putnam is challenging his federal conviction, the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to do so because Putnam previously filed a § 2255 motion, and this court did not authorize the filing of a successive § 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED on the alternative ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Putnam’s petition. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). All pending motions are DENIED. 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.
