United States of America v. Timothy A. Endre

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 17, 2025*
Decided March 18, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY A. ENDRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:14-cr-00108-SEB-MJD-1
Sarah Evans Barker,
Judge.
O R D E R
Timothy Endre, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment denying
what he styled as a petition for a writ of coram nobis. But because his petition is in
substance a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that he did not have leave to file,
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2680 Page 2
we vacate the judgment and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
Endre pleaded guilty in 2015 to enticing or coercing a minor through internet
communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). His guidelines range at sentencing was
188–235 months (based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of
VI). The court sentenced him to 212 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised
release and ordered him to pay $2,500 in restitution. Endre later petitioned,
unsuccessfully, for relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255. See Endre v. Williams,
2022 WL 2115298, at *1 (7th Cir. June 13, 2022).
Endre next petitioned the district court for a self-styled writ of coram nobis
seeking release from custody. He argued that the government’s misstatements
regarding his criminal history led the court to impose a sentence that was unlawfully
long. The court denied the petition on grounds that a sentencing error would not
invalidate his conviction and he did not explain why he could not have sought relief in
earlier proceedings.
Endre now challenges the denial of his petition, reprising the arguments he
raised in the district court. But the writ of coram nobis, which was expressly abolished in
civil cases, see F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(e), is a common law remedy that may be available in
criminal cases to allow courts to correct serious errors after the defendant leaves
custody. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 345 n.1 (2013); United States v. Hassebrock,
21 F.4th 494, 498 (7th Cir. 2021). For a defendant like Endre, in prison at the time he filed
the petition, his exclusive means to collaterally challenge his federal conviction or
sentence was a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Notwithstanding
Endre’s label for his petition, any post-judgment motion in a criminal proceeding that
falls within the scope of § 2255 is deemed a motion under § 2255—otherwise, prisoners
could use inventive captioning to avoid the procedural rules governing § 2255 motions.
See Adams v. United States, 911 F.3d 397, 404 (7th Cir. 2018).
Because Endre previously had filed a § 2255 motion, he needed—but did not
have—permission to file a successive one. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Accordingly, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Endre’s petition, and it should have
dismissed the petition on that ground. See Adams, 911 F.3d at 403.
We VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions
to DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 2 --