US v. Juan Hernandez-Monreal

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00337-LMB-1,1:10-cv-00618-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998478981] [10-4777]

US v. Juan Hernandez-Monreal

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4777 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-MONREAL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00337-LMB-1; 1:10-cv-00618-LMB) Submitted: September 28, 2010 WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 6, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior

Before DAVIS and Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Antonio Hernandez-Monreal, Appellant Pro Se. Bibighaus Hammerstrom, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Stephanie ATTORNEY,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4777 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Juan Hernandez-Monreal seeks to appeal the district

court's order summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. For the reasons explained

below, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the remainder of this appeal. Although the district court erred when it summarily dismissed Hernandez-Monreal's petition for a writ of error coram nobis as inapplicable to a criminal judgment, that error was harmless. Contrary to the district court's reasoning, both the

United States Supreme Court and this court have granted relief to federal prisoners under the writ of error coram nobis. See

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506-07, 512-13 (1954) (noting the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006), and

affirming a district court's issuance of a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a conviction after the completion of the

petitioner's term of imprisonment); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988) (same). The district court's error was was harmless because

Hernandez-Monreal's

petition

ultimately

meritless.

Hernandez-Monreal relied upon the United States Supreme Court's 2

Case: 10-4777 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 3

recent

decision

in

Padilla

v.

Kentucky

to

argue

ineffective

assistance of counsel.

See Padilla, 599 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.

Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010) (holding "counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation"). however, shows that during his Rule his 11 hearing, The record, Hernandezthat his

Monreal affirmatively

acknowledged

understanding

plea "could definitely make it difficult, if not impossible, for [him] to successfully stay legally in the United States."

Hence, the trial court's failure to consider Hernandez-Monreal's petition for a writ of error coram nobis was harmless. Next, we conclude that the trial court's determination that Hernandez-Monreal's § 2255 motion was untimely is neither debatable nor wrong. district justice court's or judge To the extent it denied habeas relief, the is a not appealable of unless a circuit 28

order issues

certificate

appealability.

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies Furthermore, nothing in the Padilla decision indicates that it is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See Mandel, 862 F.2d at 1075 (affirming district court's grant of a writ of error coram nobis vacating convictions in light of a retroactive and dispositive Supreme Court decision). 3

Case: 10-4777 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 4

this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Hernandez-Monreal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of a writ of error coram nobis, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal as to the denial of habeas relief. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

4