USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2315

In re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. (3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant

to

(a), contesting the validity of his 2018 conviction and seeking an order

vacating his criminal judgment. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy

available only when the movant demonstrates a fundamental error for which a more usual

remedy is not available and that he had valid reasons for not attacking the conviction

earlier. United States v. Lesane,

, 197 (2022).

Although Nabaya was released from prison in January 2022, he is still serving his

supervised-release term. A defendant serving a supervised-release term is considered “in

custody” for the purpose of

. United States v. Swaby,

(4th Cir. 2017). Because the more usual remedy is available, Nabaya cannot seek relief

through a coram nobis petition. See Lesane, 40 F.4th at 197. Accordingly, we deny the

petition for a writ of error coram nobis and deny Nabaya’s pending motions.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Nabaya’s petition for writ of error coram nobis and related

motions as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we

conclude that Nabaya’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See

(h).

We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2