Clive Wilson v. USA

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Clive Wilson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 11-15294

Date Filed: 08/23/2013

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15294
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-60614-KAM; 0:96-cr-06208-WJZ-3

CLIVE WILSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 23, 2013)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Clive Wilson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, appeals the denial of his pro
se petition for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his conviction for conspiring to

Case: 11-15294

Date Filed: 08/23/2013

Page: 2 of 2

possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. After Wilson
completed his sentence for his drug crime, he petitioned to vacate his conviction on
the basis that trial counsel was ineffective, under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S.
356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), for misadvising him that his plea of guilty would not
subject him to deportation. The district court denied Wilson’s petition on the
ground that Padilla did not apply retroactively on collateral review. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wilson’s petition.
Wilson’s argument for relief is foreclosed by the recent decision of the Supreme
Court in Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S.____, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013). In
Chaidez, the Court held that Padilla announced a new rule, which “under the
principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288[, 109 S. Ct. 1060] (1989), . . .
does not have retroactive effect.” 133 S. Ct. at 1105. Because Wilson’s conviction
became final before Padilla, he “cannot benefit from its holding.” Id. at 1113.
Wilson also argues, for the first time on appeal, that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to negotiate an agreement to prevent him from being deported, but we
decline to consider an argument that Wilson failed to present to the district court.
See Johnson v. United States, 340 F.3d 1219, 1228 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003).
We AFFIRM the denial of Wilson’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

2