United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
WILSON, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is a Petition for a Writ of Coram
Nobis (Rec. Doc. 51) filed by the petitioner, Gregory
Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad. For the following
reasons, the petition for a writ (Rec. Doc. 51) will be
DENIED and DISMISSED.
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20, 2005, the petitioner pleaded guilty to threats against
the immediate family members of the President of the United
States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 879. (Rec. Doc. 21).
As part of the plea agreement, he admitted that in 2004,
while incarcerated at Oakdale Federal Correctional
Institution, he "wrote several letters threatening to
kidnap and inflict bodily harm upon the daughters" of
President Bush. (Rec. Doc 21-2). When interviewed about the
letters, the petitioner indicated that he had written them to
appear tough. (Rec. Doc. 21-2). Holt also admitted that the
letter written on June 20, 2004, that threatened President
Bush's daughters with serious bodily harm, contained a
threat, and the threat was "not idle talk, exaggeration
or something written in a joking matter." (Rec. Doc.
21-2). On November 8, 2005, he was sentenced to 23 months
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. (Rec.
petitioner appealed, and his appeal was dismissed as
frivolous by the Fifth Circuit. (Rec. Doc. 38). After Holt
served his 23 month incarceration term, his supervised
release was transferred to the Eastern District of Arkansas.
(Rec. Doc. 39). His supervised release was revoked on
November 1, 2007, and he was committed to the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons to serve an additional 10 month term of
imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. United
States v. Holt, 4:07-cr-00150-SWW (E.D. Ark.), (Rec.
Doc. 11). Holt served the sentence and was released from
federal prison. Id. (Rec. Doc. 15). After he was
released, he was sentenced in Arkansas state courts for
violating Arkansas criminal laws. Id. (Rec. Doc. 15
(citing Holt v. State, 2011 Ark. 391, 384 S.W.3d498
(2011); Holt v. Hobbs, No. 5:12-CV-00453-BSM(E.D.
Ark.))). He received a life sentence under Arkansas's
Habitual Offender Laws. Holt v. Hobbs, No.
5:12-CV-00453-BSM (E.D. Ark.), (Rec. Doc. 13-1). Holt claims
that the life sentence was a result of his 2005 conviction.
(Rec. Doc. 51-1).
serving his life sentence, he filed habeas petitions that
collaterally attacked his state convictions, Holt v.
Hobbs, No. 5:12-CV-00453-BSM (E.D. Ark.) (Rec. Doc. 2),
and his 2005 federal conviction in both the Eastern District
of Arkansas, United States v. Holt,
4:07-cr-00150-SWW (E.D. Ark.), (Rec. Doc. 13), and the
Western District of Louisiana (Rec. Doc. 40). All of his
collateral attacks failed. See (Rec. Docs. 49, 50);
Holt v. Hobbs, No. 5:12-CV-00453-BSM (E.D. Ark.)
(Rec. Doc. 60); United States v. Holt,
4:07-cr-00150-SWW (E.D. Ark.), (Rec. Doc. 15). The habeas
petition filed before this court in 2013 was dismissed
because it was untimely and Holt was no longer in custody.
(Rec. Doc. 49). The court also discussed whether the petition
was viable as a petition for a writ of coram nobis
and concluded that it was not. The court determined that
relief through a writ of coram nobis was unavailable
because the claimsHolt raised in the 2013 petition could have
been raised on direct appeal or in a timely filed 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 claim. (Rec. Doc. 49, p. 5).
petitioner filed the current petition for a writ of coram
nobis on December 5, 2016. In his petition, he argues
that he is entitled to relief because (1) the United States
Supreme Court's ruling in Elonis v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2001 (2015), changed the requisite
mental state required for threat convictions; (2) the
statements made regarding the President's daughters were
political speech; and (3) his guilty plea was coerced.
writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy
available to a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to
vacate a criminal conviction in circumstances where the
petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a
consequence of the conviction, and that the challenged error
is of sufficient magnitude to justify the extraordinary
relief." United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d
532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jimenez v.
Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996)). The
petition for writ should be filed in the district court of
his conviction. Id. The district court has authority
to grant a writ of coram nobis under the All Writs
Act, which permits "courts established by Act of
Congress" to issue "all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions."
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). In his petition for a writ of
coram nobis, Holt challenges his 2005 conviction
which resulted in a 23-month term of imprisonment imposed by
this court. Therefore, the petition is properly before this
court, and the court has jurisdiction over the petition under
the All Writs Act. See Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 534
(quoting Jimenez, 91 F.3d at 768); 28 U.S.C. §
Holt to be granted relief under a writ of coram
nobis, he must show (1) that he is no longer in custody
for the challenged conviction; (2) that no other remedy is
available; (3) that he suffers a civil disability because of
the challenged conviction; (4) that the conviction was based
on an error of sufficient magnitude to justify relief; and
(5) that he exercised reasonable diligence in trying to
remedy the error. See Esogbue, 357 F.3d at 534;
United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 427 (5th Cir.
1998). "In addition, a petitioner bears the considerable
burden of overcoming the presumption that previous judicial
proceedings were correct." Dyer, 136 F.3d at
422 (citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502,
No Longer in Custody for the Challenged Conviction
must show that he is no longer in custody for the challenged
conviction, the violation of 18 U.S.C § 879. A
petitioner is no longer "in custody" for a
conviction when "the sentence imposed for that
conviction has fully expired." Esogbue, 357
F.3d at 534 (citing Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,
490-91 (1989)). The 23-month sentence imposed for his
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 879 has been served, and even
though he is currently in custody under subsequent
convictions in Arkansas, he is no longer in custody for the
challenged sentence. Therefore, he meets the first criteria.
No Other ...