
    Jason VALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    15-581
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    September 26, 2016
    FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Jason Vale, pro se, Bellerose Manor, NY.
    FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLEE: David C. James, Charles S. Kleinberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, Brooklyn, NY.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
      
       Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Jason Vale, pro se, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela and coram nobis. Vale argued that the sentence imposed for his 2004 criminal contempt conviction was improper because it was based upon the fraud guideline without a jury finding that Vale committed fraud, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a writ of audita querela. United States v. Richter, 510 F.3d 103, 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). We review the denial of a writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion, but conduct a de novo review with respect to whether the district court applied the proper legal standard. United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 2000).

Vale’s challenge to his sentence is moot because he has already completed his terms of imprisonment and supervised release, and there are no apparent continuing injuries or collateral consequences stemming from his conviction. See United States v. Mercurris, 192 F.3d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 1999). In any event, his Apprendi argument is barred by the law of the case doctrine because the substance of his argument has already been rejected by this Court and, to the extent it was not, it is barred because the issue could have been decided earlier. See United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007). Finally, Apprendi affected a district court’s authority to determine sentencing factors that necessarily increased a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum; it did not otherwise affect a district court’s ability to determine relevant conduct pursuant to the guidelines by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Vaughn, 430 F.3d 518, 524-25 (2d Cir. 2005).

We have considered all of Vale’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  