From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Samuels

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
May 4, 2010
376 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2010)

Summary

dealing with career offender designation

Summary of this case from SISK v. U.S.

Opinion

No. 10-6262.

April 29, 2010.

May 4, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00033-GCM-1).

Louis Samuels, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Louis Samuels appeals the district court's text order denying as frivolous his petition for a writ of audita querela. In his petition to the district court, Samuels argued that Amendment 709 of the Sentencing Guidelines requires that the district court resentence him without a career offender designation. Despite Samuels' contentions to the contrary, alternative remedies existed by which Samuels should have raised the instant claim challenging his criminal conviction and sentence. See United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) ("[A] writ of audita querela is not available to a petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Samuels' motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Samuels

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
May 4, 2010
376 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2010)

dealing with career offender designation

Summary of this case from SISK v. U.S.
Case details for

U.S. v. Samuels

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis SAMUELS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: May 4, 2010

Citations

376 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

SISK v. U.S.

The Petitioner has not done so and he may not avoid AEDPA's requirements for filing a second or successive §…

Samuels v. United States

The Fourth Circuit affirmed on May 4, 2010, finding that the Court did not err by denying the petition…