Henry Brown v. United States, 692 F. App'x 214

Henry R. Brown, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his coram nobis petition challenging his 1997 guilty plea under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using a communication facility to facilitate a felony.
Brown argued his trial counsel, Gary Hill, provided ineffective assistance by: (1) advising that a § 843(b) conviction would not qualify as a "felony drug offense" for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and (2) allegedly misrepresenting Brown's participation in the recorded phone call that formed the basis of the charge.
Coram nobis relief is available only for fundamental errors that cause a miscarriage of justice and requires reasonable diligence in seeking relief; petitioner must explain delay.
Brown had not shown reasonable diligence in raising the § 843(b)–felony-drug-offense argument despite filing a § 2255 motion about nine months after Fifth Circuit precedent (Mankins) contradicted counsel's alleged advice.
The district court found Brown's claim that he told counsel he did not participate in the call was contradicted by the factual basis he admitted in his plea agreement; the plea carried significant evidentiary weight.
The district court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied the writ; the Fifth Circuit affirmed and granted Brown's motion to supplement his brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown exercised reasonable diligence for coram nobis regarding counsel's advice that § 843(b) is not a felony drug offense	Brown: counsel misadvised him; he relied on that advice and raised it late	Govt: Brown filed § 2255 after Mankins and offers no sound reason for delay; coram nobis requires prompt diligence	Held: Brown failed to show reasonable diligence; claim untimely and denied
Whether ineffective assistance based on advice about § 843(b) merits coram nobis relief	Brown: advice prejudiced plea decision	Govt: no adequate excuse for delay; substantive claim not timely presented	Held: Denied for lack of diligence and failure to justify delay
Whether counsel was ineffective for allegedly telling Brown he did not participate in the call	Brown: told counsel he did not participate; counsel failed to protect him	Govt: Brown admitted factual basis in plea that contradicts his later claim	Held: District court did not clearly err in rejecting Brown's self-serving factual claim
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Brown: factual disputes warrant a hearing	Govt: record (plea admission) defeats claim; no entitlement to hearing	Held: No hearing required because record shows Brown not entitled to relief

United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 1998) (standards for coram nobis relief and requirement of reasonable diligence)
Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2008) (standards of review and coram nobis procedure)
United States v. Castro, 26 F.3d 557 (5th Cir. 1994) (ineffective assistance can support coram nobis)
United States v. Mankins, 135 F.3d 946 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding relevant to whether § 843(b) qualifies as a felony drug offense)
United States v. Abreo, 30 F.3d 29 (5th Cir. 1994) (unambiguous plea agreements carry great evidentiary weight)
Lujan v. United States, 424 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1970) (no evidentiary hearing required where record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief)