UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ARIF DURRANI, Petitioner, No. 3:20-cv-1373 (SRU)

v.

UNITED STATES, Respondent.

ORDER

Arif Durrani has filed a petition to vacate his thirty-four-year-old conviction and sentence pursuant to

and by writ of error coram nobis or audita querela. In 1987, Durrani was convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act,

, and the accompanying International Traffic In Arms regulations,

et seq., by shipping Hawk missile parts to Iran without a license. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which he has fully served. This is the ninth time Durrani has challenged his conviction1— including pursuant to

and by writ of error coram nobis or audita querela— since 1990. The petition is frivolous. Durrani raises issues that have been exhaustively addressed— and rejected—in prior motions brought by Durrani. See, e.g., Case No. 5:86-cr-00059-SRU, Ruling, Doc. No. 15; Ruling, Doc. No. 43; Ruling, Doc. No. 64; Ruling, Doc. No. 72; Order, Doc. No. 98. Moreover, as the government notes, to the extent Durrani’s petition is construed as one under

, it necessarily fails because Durrani is no longer “in custody” as required under the statute. See Scanio v. United States,

(2d Cir. 1994) (“In

1 See, e.g., Mot. to Vacate, Doc. No. 1; Mot. to Reopen Case, Doc. No. 27; Mot. to Reopen Case and Dismiss Indictment, Doc. No. 44; Mot. to Reopen Case, Doc. No. 65; Mot. to Dismiss Indictment, Doc. No. 75. order to invoke habeas corpus review by a federal court, the petitioner must satisfy the jurisdictional ‘in custody’ requirement of

.”). And, to the extent his petition is one for writ of error coram nobis, it is untimely and inappropriate. See Carlisle v. United States,

(1996) (“[I]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be necessary or appropriate.”) (cleaned up); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(e) (abolishing various writs, including writ of coram nobis and audita querela). The petition is therefore denied. The Clerk is directed to close the file. So ordered. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 3rd day of August 2021.

/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge