Bryson v. United States Department of Justice
This text of 574 F. App'x 795 (Bryson v. United States Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner William M. Bryson appeals pro se from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of audita querela requesting a refund of a $100 special assessment imposed as part of his sentence for money laundering. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a federal prisoner may file a petition for a writ of audita querela, see United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir.2009).
Bryson contends that he is entitled to a refund because there is insufficient evidence to support his money laundering conviction. Dismissal of the petition was proper because these arguments are cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d at 1079-80 (a writ of audita querela is only available to fill in “gaps” in postconviction remedies). That Bryson has already sought habeas relief and is now precluded from filing a section 2255 motion absent authorization from the Court of Appeals does not make a writ of audita querela available to him. See id. at 1080.
*796 We do not consider Bryson’s additional arguments. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (this court does not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or in the reply brief).
Bryson’s motion to strike the answering brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
574 F. App'x 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryson-v-united-states-department-of-justice-ca9-2014.