Heijnen v. United States, No. 11-2122 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner Antonius Heijnen filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 1651 for either a writ of coram nobis or a writ of audita querela, seeking reversal and expungement of his federal-court convictions on several charges. In 2005, a jury found Petitioner guilty of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering charges. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the convictions, but the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The court entered an order providing Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw his petition rather than having it recharacterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner did not withdraw it; the court recharacterized it as a 2255 motion and dismissed it as untimely. Petitioner appealed that dismissal but then voluntarily dismissed his appeal. He then petitioned the district court for either a writ of error coram nobis or a writ of audita querela, which the court denied. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner raised no argument why section 2255 did not provide an adequate or effective remedy. As such, the Court did not reach whether Petitioner's petition failed on the merits for lack of jurisdiction, "because the petition was properly dismissed in either event."
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.