In re: Daniels v., No. 06-6999 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6999 In Re: TERRENCE ARNEZ DANIELS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (5:01-cr-00736-CMC-2) Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 18, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Arnez Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Terrence Arnez Daniels petitions for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking an evidentiary hearing to consider his claims of ineffective assistance sentencing enhancements. of counsel and unconstitutional A writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000) can be used to vacate a conviction when there is a fundamental error resulting in conviction, and no other means of relief is available. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-11 (1954); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1074-75 (4th Cir. 1988). But see Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (noting it is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be necessary or appropriate. ). The remedy is also limited to petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to their conviction. See Carlisle, 517 U.S. at 429. Our review of the petition leads us to conclude that Daniels failed to establish that his conviction is invalid, or that he is no longer in custody pursuant to his conviction, and he is therefore not entitled to coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we grant Daniels motion to proceed in forma pauperis, grant his motion to file an oversized brief, and deny the petition for a writ of error coram nobis. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are - 2 - 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.