Pearlie Ingram v. US, No. 15-6428 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6428 PEARLIE INGRAM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (9:14-cv-04771-CMC) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pearlie Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pearlie dismissing Lee his Ingram petition appeals for the writ of district error court’s coram order nobis. We affirm. A writ of error coram nobis can be used to vacate a conviction when a fundamental error resulted in conviction and no other means of relief is available. United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009); United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). But see Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would internal be necessary quotation marks or appropriate.” omitted)). We (alteration review for abuse and of discretion the district court’s decision to deny coram nobis relief. Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 2013). Applying these standards, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ingram’s petition for writ of coram nobis. Accordingly, we deny Ingram’s motions to consider new evidence and for oral argument and affirm the judgment of the district facts court. and legal We dispense contentions with are 2 oral argument adequately because presented in the the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.