Baranski v. United States, No. 16-3699 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseA coram nobis petitioner whose motion for 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief was denied while he was in custody must obtain authorization from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with section 2244(b)(3)(B). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in section 2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner whose motion for section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in custody. In this case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's post conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to import machine guns from Eastern Europe by submitting forms with false entries to the ATF and sentenced to sixty months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was no fundamental error in petitioner's case that warranted issue of the writ.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's prior opinions in the matter, see U.S.v. Baranski, 75 F. App's 566 (8th Cir. 2003) and Baranski v. U.S. 515 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). In this petition for a writ of error coram nobis, Baranski alleged various acts of government misconduct at his trial. Held: a coram nobis petitioner whose motion for Section 2255 relief was denied while he was in custody does not have to obtain authorization from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with Section 2244(b)(3)(B) before filing his writ petition; AEDPA's restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in Section 2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner whose motion for Section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in custody. In order to be entitled to relief, Baranski must present newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; here the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was no fundamental error warranting issuance of the writ.
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.