Ramani Pilla v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2366
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pilla, an Indian citizen, was removed after pleading guilty to 18 U.S.C. §1001.
- She seeks a writ of coram nobis after prison term, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on immigration consequences of the plea.
- Bell represented Pilla, advised plea after strong government proof, and sought defenses including diminished capacity; he did not pursue immigration relief.
- Bell consulted Brown, an immigration attorney, who advised that the charged conduct was not an aggravated felony, suggesting no automatic deportation.
- Immigration judge and BIA later found the offense to be an aggravated felony, making Pilla removable; this was reviewed in a companion case (Pilla v. Holder).
- Pilla later challenged the sentence via §2255 but court denied, and she then filed for coram nobis after completing her sentence; the district court granted extensions and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis is a second or successive §2255 motion | Pilla's claim falls under coram nobis, not §2255 | The claim should be treated as §2255 for in-custody relief | Coram nobis treated on its merits; not a second §2255 motion |
| Whether Bell’s performance was deficient for not advising on immigration consequences | Bell had a duty to provide accurate immigration advice | Padilla clarified this duty post-hoc; retroactivity not decided here | Performance unclear but prejudice not shown anyway |
| Whether Bell’s advice prejudiced Pilla | Different immigration advice would have led to trial or better outcome | Overwhelming evidence of guilt meant minimal chance of acquittal; prejudice not shown | No reasonable probability that plea or outcome would change |
| Whether Pilla’s involuntary/unknowing plea argument was preserved | Pilla raised it in late reply | Argument not preserved for appeal | Forfeited; not preserved on appeal |
| Whether district court abused Rule 60(b) denial | No abuse found; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2004) (functional approach to §2255 concerns; captioning not controlling)
- Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) (functional approach to successive applications in §2244(b))
- Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (limits on second or successive motions; custody requirement)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (duty to advise on immigration consequences of guilty plea)
- Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2008) (preservation issues; late-brief arguments not preserved)
- United States v. Johnson, 237 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2001) (prejudice standard for coram nobis; 'likely would have altered outcome')