USA v. Anthony L. Jerdine

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 24, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-15974
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-20251-CR-ASG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY L. JERDINE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 24, 2010)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lewis Jerdine, a felon on supervised release, appeals pro se the

-- 1 of 3 --

denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act. 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a). Jerdine argued that his conviction was void because the statute
that conferred jurisdiction on the district court, 18 U.S.C. § 3231, was
unconstitutional. We affirm.
The All Writs Act gives federal courts authority to issue “all writs necessary
or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). A district court may issue a writ of
error coram nobis only if “there is and was no other available avenue of relief”and
“the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has
not been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding itself
irregular and invalid.” Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir.
2000). We review the denial of a writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion.
Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jerdine a writ of
error coram nobis. Jerdine had available other means to challenge his conviction,
and he previously challenged without success the jurisdiction of the district court
in a petition for a writ of mandamus, In re Jerdine, No. 06-11534 (11th Cir. June 8,
2006), and a motion to vacate, Jerdine v. United States, No. 09-16240 (11th Cir.
Apr. 21, 2010). See Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734. Jerdine argues on appeal that he
2

-- 2 of 3 --

also is entitled to relief because he was effectively denied counsel during his guilty
plea proceedings and his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made, but
we will not consider these arguments for the first time on appeal. See Tannenbaum
v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Jerdine is not entitled to
extraordinary relief.
The denial of Jerdine’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis is
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --