Castellon-Gutierrez v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129450

In Feb. 2008 Castellon-Gutierrez and two others robbed Marvin Flores at knifepoint; Flores identified him at show-up.
In July 2008 he pled guilty in Maryland state court to robbery with a dangerous weapon; Judge Johnson imposed five-year suspended sentence and Castellon-Gutierrez was deported.
In April 2009 Castellon-Gutierrez unlawfully reentered the United States; he was indicted in May 2009 for unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and pled guilty in Oct. 2009.
On Feb. 25, 2010 he was sentenced in federal court to 46 months; his offense level was 21 after a 16-level enhancement for a prior crime of violence.
Before federal sentencing, Castellon-Gutierrez sought coram Nobis relief in state court; in May 2010 the state court vacated the robbery conviction for due process reasons.
The government moved to dismiss Castellon-Gutierrez’s § 2255 petition; a hearing was held on Oct. 7, 2010; the court denied the petition and granted the government’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the § 2255 motion ripe for review?	Castellon-Gutierrez’s state conviction vacatur confirms a concrete controversy.	Pending state appellate process leaves the issue abstract and not ripe.	The motion is ripe; controversy is concrete and not abstract.
Does vacatur of the state robbery conviction reduce the unlawful reentry sentence?	Vacatur forecloses enhancement for crime of violence and lowers reentry term.	Vacatur does not alter the reentry sentence; history of deportation remains unchanged.	Vacatur does not reduce the unlawful reentry sentence.
Does due process require relief based on coram nobis vacatur?	Plea was constitutionally defective; due process requires relief.	Coram nobis relief based on state-law defects does not necessarily create federal due process violations.	No federal due process violation; continued enhanced sentence permissible.
Should the court grant a certificate of appealability on the coram nobis question?	Question presented is novel in the Fourth Circuit and deserves review.	No substantial showing of a constitutional right violation.	A certificate of appealability will issue on the stated question.

Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2006) (ripeness framework and decision to review concrete issues)
Nuvox Comm'cns, Inc. v. Sanford, 241 Fed.Appx. 126 (4th Cir. 2007) (ripeness guards against abstract disputes)
United States v. Cruz-Gramajo, 570 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2009) (enhancement for crime of violence upheld)
Earle v. United States, 2009 WL 2634569 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2009) (comparison on ineffective or constitutionally deficient plea documents)
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court 2005) (presumption about defendant's knowledge of charges when counsel explains elements)
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (due process requires voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea when elements explained)
United States v. Luna-Diaz, 222 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (vacatur of conviction generally cannot negate deportation-era sentence)
Desrosier v. Bissonnette, 502 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2007) (presumption that defense counsel explained elements may apply)
Garcia-Lopez, 375 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2004) (plain language of guidelines governs time of deportation analysis)
Kahoe, 134 F.3d 1230 (4th Cir. 1998) (vacatur after possession of firearm unrelated to predicate offense)