United States v. Schomaker , 40 F. App'x 612 ( 2002 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-2568
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JOHN SCHOMAKER,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
John Schomaker on brief pro se.
Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, and Peter E.
Papps, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
July 26, 2002
Per Curiam. Petitioner appeals from the district
court's denial of his application for a writ of coram nobis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The judgment will be affirmed.
The district court correctly determined that
petitioner was ineligible for coram nobis relief. Because
petitioner is in federal custody and contests the validity of
his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the exclusive avenue
for seeking relief. See Pennsylvania Bur. of Corr. v. United
States Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985); United States v.
Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v.
Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 55 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528
U.S. 1176 (2000).
This is not merely a formal distinction. As
petitioner has already filed four previous § 2255 motions, all
of which were rejected, he would be required to satisfy the
rigid gatekeeping provisions applicable to successive § 2255
motions in order to have the merits of his claims considered.
One of those provisions requires petitioner to request leave of
this court to file a successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (¶
8); see Jamison v. United States, 244 F.3d 44, 45-46 (1st Cir.
2001). We have not granted such leave, nor would we since
petitioner's claims involve neither newly discovered evidence
nor a new rule of constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 &
2255. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
-2-