KIMBERLIN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 83

ENTRY ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS AND ALL PENDING MOTIONS IN THIS CASE NUMBER - For the reasons stated above, Kimberlin's Motion to Vacate Conviction Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and/or Confession of Error by the Government, Dk t. 30 , as converted to a petition for writ of coram nobis is DENIED. Kimberlin's Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on Rehaif Issue, Dkt. 77 , is GRANTED. All other pending motions, Dkt. 33 , Dkt 45 , Dkt. 64 , Dkt. 68 , are DENIED. His Motion to File New Supplemental Authorities on the Issue of Microscopic Hair Evidence, Dkt. 73 is DENIED AS MOOT under this case number and is to be re-docketed by the Clerk to be determined in the related case, Case No . 1:79-cr- 00007-TWP-MJD-1. The clerk is directed to also re-docket Kimberlin's Submission of Petitioner's Supplement with New Authorities on the Issue of Microscopic Hair Evidence, Dkt. 81 , in Case No. 1:79-cr-00007-TWP-MJD-1. The &# 167; 2255 motion, Dkt. 2 , shall also be terminated in the underlying criminal action Case No. 1:79-cr-00007-TWP-MJD-1. Final judgment consistent with this Order will issue in a separate filing. (See Order.) Copies via US Mail per distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/28/2020. (NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:18-cv-01141-TWP-MPB

ENTRY ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS
AND ALL PENDING MOTIONS IN THIS CASE NUMBER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Brett Kimberlin’s (“Kimberlin”) Motion to
Vacate Conviction Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and/or Confession of Error by the
Government (Dkt. 30)˗˗which was converted to a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis˗˗and
several other motions. Kimberlin has also filed a Motion for Limited Discovery (Dkt. 33), Motion
to Strike (Dkt. 45), Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 68), Motion to File New Supplemental Authorities
on the Issue of Microscopic Hair Evidence (Dkt. 73), and pro se Motion to Supplement Petition
for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on Rehaif Issue (Dkt. 77). Also pending is Respondent, the United
States of America’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply, (Dkt. 64). For the reasons explained below
Kimberlin’s Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on Rehaif Issue, Dkt.
77, is granted, and the other Motions are denied, including Kimberlin’s Petition, as set forth in
Docket 1 and his Motion to Vacate Conviction, Dkt. 30.
I. BACKGROUND
In February 1979, Kimberlin was charged in a 34-count indictment with crimes related to
a series of bombings in Speedway, Indiana. Over the course of three trials in 1980 and 1981,
Kimberlin was convicted of numerous felonies arising out of his impersonation of a Department

of Defense police officer and eight explosions that occurred in Speedway, Indiana in September
1978. See United States v. Kimberlin, 781 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1985). Kimberlin has challenged
his convictions on numerous occasions. See, e.g., id.; United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d. 210
(7th Cir. 1986); Kimberlin v. United States, Case No. IP 00-280-C-D/G (S.D. Ind. May 3, 2000).
He served his sentences and was released from imprisonment in 2001.
In addition to the convictions challenged in this case, Kimberlin has incurred a 1974 felony
perjury conviction in Case No. IP 73-cr-132; and the Government asserts and Kimberlin has not
disputed a 1979 felony conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana in Texas. (Dkt. 46 at 5). 1
On April 13, 2018, Kimberlin filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 again
challenging his convictions for possessing and wearing a uniform bearing a Department of Defense
sleeve patch and illegal use of the Presidential Seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 912, 701, and 713.
(See 1:79-cr-7-TWP-MDJ-1, Dkt. 2). On April 27, 2018, in response to an order to show cause
why his motion should not be dismissed because he is no longer in custody, Kimberlin notified the
Court that his motion to vacate would proceed as a petition for writ of error coram nobis under
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. (Dkt.3.) Kimberlin alleges that he continues to suffer
consequences from his convictions for possessing and wearing a uniform bearing a Department of

1

The record does not provide a case number or citation for the Texas felony conviction, but does make several
references to its existence. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that on June 11, 1980, Mr. Kimberlin received a fouryear sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess four thousand pounds of marijuana in a federal court in
Texas. United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, (7th Cir. 1986). (“He had been indicted for conspiracy to possess
and for importation and possession with intent to distribute four thousand pounds of marijuana. The prosecution in
Texas was disposed of June 11, 1980, when he was sentenced on a plea of guilty, to one count, and returned to Indiana
June 16.”) Id. at 225. (“The burden on defendant in this case is somewhat heavier because he had been convicted in a
federal court in Texas of conspiracy with others from on or about February 7, 1979 to on or about February 16, 1979
to possess marijuana with an intent to distribute.”) Id. at 237. Based on this record, the Court concludes that the felony
conviction still exists.

2

Defense sleeve patch and possession of a copy of the Presidential Seal. “For example, because
these convictions bear on the issue of fraud, Petitioner is unable to apply for or successfully receive
government grants.” Id. at 2.
Later filings by Kimberlin and his attorney, Kevin McShane, expanded his challenges to
cover his other convictions arising out of the bombings in Speedway. Sadly, Mr. McShane passed
away suddenly on January 2, 2020. 2
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“The writ of coram nobis, available under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides
a method for collaterally attacking a criminal conviction when a defendant is not in custody, and
thus cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684, 687 (7th
Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Folak, 865 F.2d 110, 112–13 (7th Cir. 1988)). “The writ is an
extraordinary remedy, allowed only where collateral relief is necessary to address an ongoing civil
disability resulting from a conviction.” Id. (citing Godoski v. United States, 304 F.3d 761, 762
(7th Cir. 2002)).
[C]oram nobis relief is available when: (1) the error alleged is of the most
fundamental character as to render the criminal conviction invalid; (2) there are
sound reasons for the defendant’s failure to seek earlier relief; and (3) the defendant
continues to suffer from his conviction even though he is out of custody.
United States v. Wilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted) (citing
United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2007)).

2

On January 29, 2020, pursuant to Ind. R. Adm. and Disc. 23(27)(c)(2), an Attorney Surrogate for Mr. McShane was
appointed by the Marion Superior Court, Probate Division, Case No. 49D08-2001-CB-))1596. Upon appointment,
the Attorney Surrogate may do several things, including (among other things): take possession of the files and records
of the law practice; obtain information about pending matters notify clients to obtain replacement counsel; apply for
extensions of time in pending cases; and make referrals to replacement counsel with the agreement of the client. Ind.
R. Adm. and Disc. 23(27)(c)(3).

3

III. DISCUSSION
Kimberlin has alleged numerous errors in the three trials that led to his convictions in this
case. Some of his arguments rely on recent developments in case law which were not available at
the time of his prior appeals and collateral attacks. He seeks relief from those convictions asserting
that they have interfered with his ability to obtain government grants, sit on a jury in his home
state of Maryland, and renew his pilot’s license, among other impediments. (Dkt. 3; Dkt. 67 at 2829.)
The Court assumes, without deciding, that these alleged impediments cause Kimberlin
more than merely incidental harm. Sloan, 505 F.3d at 697. But because he has been convicted of
multiple felonies in separate trials, including a 1974 perjury conviction in this Court, Case No. IP
73-cr-132, and the 1979 conspiracy to distribute marijuana conviction in Texas, (as referenced in
Kimberlin, 805 F.2d at 225), neither of which are at issue here, a successful challenge to any one
conviction will not relieve him of these impediments. See United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199,
205 (7th Cir. 1988) (“a single felony conviction supports any civil disabilities and reputational
injury [a convicted felon] may have to endure”).
As discussed in detail below, Kimberlin’s challenge to his convictions for impersonating a
Department of Defense official fail. Even if he were to successfully overturn his other bombingrelated convictions, he would remain a convicted felon on at least the impersonation convictions,
and likely his felony perjury and felony drug conspiracy convictions which he does not challenge
here. Those felony convictions interfere with his ability to sit on a jury in Maryland state court,
renew his pilot’s license, and obtain government grants whether his convictions related to the
explosions in Speedway are overturned.

4

“Courts must conserve their scarce time to resolve the claims of those who have yet to
receive their first decision.” United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 698 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting
United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1988)). Kimberlin’s liberty is not at stake and
overturning his bombing-related convictions would not relieve him of the civil impediments
discussed above.

Therefore, the Court will analyze Kimberlin’s challenge to his false

impersonation convictions, but not his other claims.
A.

Challenge to Convictions Under 18 U.S.C. § 912
Kimberlin challenges his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 912, for falsely impersonating a

Department of Defense (“DOD”) official. (Dkt. 1.) He argues that these convictions violate the
First Amendment under United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), and contends his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to challenge these charges on
First Amendment grounds. (Dkt. 21.) 3 Specifically, Kimberlin argues that his convictions under
§ 912 violate the First Amendment because his wearing of the uniform and DOD patch while
conducting commercial transactions constitutes expressive speech protected by the First
Amendment. (Dkt. 1 at 3.) He seeks to extend the reasoning of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S.
709 (2012), and United States v. Swisher, 811 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 2016), cases which dealt with the
Stolen Valor Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. § 704, to his convictions under § 912.
In Alvarez, the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the Stolen
Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b) (which prohibits lying about being awarded military medals) and
held it to be invalid under the First Amendment. In Swisher, the Ninth Circuit extended the holding
in Alvarez to § 704(a) (which criminalizes the unauthorized wearing of such medals). Swisher,

3

In addition, Mr. Kimberlin challenges his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 701 for unlawfully possessing an official
DOD insignia, and 18 U.S.C. § 713 for illegal use of the presidential seal violate the First Amendment under Alvarez,
but the Court need not reach these arguments.

5

811 F.3d at 303-04. However, Neither Alvarez nor Swisher held convictions under § 912 or § 701,
the statutes Kimberlin was convicted under, to be unconstitutional.
Last year, the Seventh Circuit addressed an argument similar to Kimberlin’s in United
States v. Bonin, 932 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2019). In Bonin, the Seventh Circuit rejected the
defendant’s attempt to extend the reasoning of Alvarez to overturn his conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 912 for impersonating a United States Marshal. The Seventh Circuit squarely held that the actsas-such clause of § 912 is narrowly drawn to serve the government’s compelling interests of
protecting the integrity of government processes. Id. at 536 (citing Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 721).
Undeterred, Kimberlin argues that Bonin left the door open for challenges to § 912 in less
egregious cases such as his, but this Court disagrees. The Seventh Circuit rejected Bonin’s
argument that, if allowed to stand, 18 U.S.C § 912 could be used to prosecute people for simply
wearing Halloween costumes. But that was in the context of Bonin’s void for vagueness
challenge, not his facial challenge under Alvarez, and the Seventh Circuit ultimately avoided
evaluating his void for vagueness challenge because his conduct—claiming to be a U.S. Marshal
and displaying a weapon in a theater as a way to intimidate other moviegoers who asked him to
stop talking on his cell phone—clearly violated § 912.
The same can be said of Kimberlin’s conduct. He was not on his way to a Halloween party
when he stopped to have a calendar or party invitations printed. The evidence at his trial
demonstrated that he wore a DOD patch on his shirt and attempted to have copies made of the
presidential seal. It makes no difference that the copies were never made for Kimberlin. It was
reasonable for the jury to conclude that he wore the DOD patch to deceive the copy store employee
so that he or she would copy the presidential seal for him and the impersonation was to falsely
imply that he was government official. Bonin held that public safety and protection of the

6

reputation of law enforcement were compelling interests and § 912 is narrowly drawn to protect
that interest. Thus, Kimberlin’s First Amendment challenge is foreclosed by Bonin.
As for Kimberlin’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Government argues that
Kimberlin previously raised ineffective assistance of counsel in his § 2255 motion and is therefore
precluded from raising it again here. (Dkt. 37 at 26.) Kimberlin represented himself in his § 2255
motion. He argued that his counsel failed to prepare a defense against these charges. He could
have also argued that his counsel failed to raise a First Amendment challenge to the charges.
Claims that could have and should have been raised in a § 2255 motion cannot be brought in a
petition for writ of coram nobis. See Cooper v. United States, 199 F.3d 898, 901 (7th Cir. 1999)
(§ 1651 is not a “substitute” for § 2255). Kimberlin requests a hearing on this issue because his
former trial counsel has submitted an affidavit stating that he performed deficiently in this regard.
But counsel’s self-assessment that he was ineffective does not change the fact that Bonin held that
the acts-as-such clause of § 912 is constitutional.
Kimberlin has not shown that a fundamental error renders his convictions under § 912
invalid. Because these felony convictions, and his other unrelated felony convictions are valid,
the Court need not address Kimberlin’s arguments regarding the alleged errors in his second and
third trials which resulted in his conviction on charges related to the explosions in Speedway in
the fall of 1978.
B.

Other Motions
Kimberlin’s Motion for Hearing, Dkt. 68, is denied because a hearing is not needed to

address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his other arguments for a hearing are
rendered moot by the Court’s holding. His Motion for Limited Discovery, Dkt. 33, and the
Government’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Motion for Limited Discovery,

7

Dkt. 64, are denied as moot. Kimberlin’s Motion to Strike, Dkt. 45, is also denied. The only
request to strike that is relevant to this Order is Kimberlin’s request to strike reference to his
unrelated conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. That conviction is relevant to the
question of whether overturning the convictions Kimberlin challenges in this jurisdiction would
relieve him of civil disabilities associated with being a convicted felon. The other items listed in
Kimberlin’s Motion to Strike were not considered by the Court in reaching its decision.
Kimberlin’s Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on Rehaif Issue,
Dkt. [77], is granted. In Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), the United States Supreme
Court held that to convict an individual of illegal firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)
and 924(a)(2), the Government must prove (1) the individual knew he or she possessed a firearm,
and (2) the individual knew that he or she belonged to the relevant category of persons banned
from possessing a firearm. Kimberlin asserts that his felon in possession of explosive convictions
(violations of 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(1)), as charged in Counts 23 and 24 of the 34-count indictment,
must be vacated because the government never proved at trial that “he had any criminal intent or
that he knew he had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year.” (Dkt. 48 at 1).
The evidence presented at Kimberlin’s trial does not support this assertion. The Court has
considered Kimberlin's Supplement Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on Rehaif Issue, but
finds it unpersuasive.
Finally, Kimberlin’s Motion to File New Supplemental Authorities on the Issue of
Microscopic Hair Evidence, Dkt. 73, now only relates to his motion for DNA testing in the
underlying criminal action. The motion is denied as moot under this case number because the
Court will consider the supplemental authority on microscopic hair evidence in the criminal case.

8

Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to refile the motion at Dkt. 73, and the related submission by
Kimberlin at Dkt. 81, in the criminal case: No. 1:79-cr-00007-TWP-MJD-1.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Kimberlin’s Motion to Vacate Conviction Based on Newly
Discovered Evidence and/or Confession of Error by the Government, Dkt. [30], as converted to a
petition for writ of coram nobis is DENIED. Kimberlin’s Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ
of Error Coram Nobis on Rehaif Issue, Dkt. [77], is GRANTED. All other pending motions, Dkt.
[33], Dkt [45], Dkt. [64], Dkt. [68], are DENIED.
His Motion to File New Supplemental Authorities on the Issue of Microscopic Hair
Evidence, Dkt. [73] is DENIED AS MOOT under this case number and is to be re-docketed by
the Clerk to be determined in the related case, Case No. 1:79-cr-00007-TWP-MJD-1. The clerk
is directed to also re-docket Kimberlin’s Submission of Petitioner’s Supplement with New
Authorities on the Issue of Microscopic Hair Evidence, Dkt. [81], in Case No. 1:79-cr-00007TWP-MJD-1.
The § 2255 motion, Dkt. [2], shall also be terminated in the underlying criminal action
Case No. 1:79-cr-00007-TWP-MJD-1.
Final judgment consistent with this Order will issue in a separate filing.

SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/28/2020

9

DISTRIBUTION:
Brian L. Reitz
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
James Robert Wood
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Crystal D. Pulley
Surrogate for Attorney Kevin McShane
251 E. Ohio Street
Suite 915
Indianapolis, IN 46204
[e-mail]
Brett Kimberlin
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, MD 20817

10