William Rebrook, III v. US, No. 14-6352 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6352 WILLIAM EDWARD REBROOK, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cv-01009) Submitted: September 26, 2014 Decided: December 30, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie Carl Simmons, DITRAPANO, BARRETT, DIPIERO, MCGINLEY & SIMMONS PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Edward ReBrook, III, appeals the district court’s order, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation (except as otherwise stated), denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and dismissing the action. In his writ, ReBrook alleges that his conviction for wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346 (2012), is no longer valid in light of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010). We note that a writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort, United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988), and that it is narrowly limited to extraordinary cases presenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice. States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009). United We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the writ, United States v. (providing reasons valid Akinsade, review stated under 18 by 686 F.3d standard), the U.S.C. 248, and district § 1343 251-52 (4th accordingly court under a that Cir. affirm the property 2012) for conviction fraud the is theory. ReBrook v. United States, No. 2:10-cv-01009 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 11, 2014). legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3