Rodgers v. United States, 20-2176-cv

Arnold E. Rodgers pleaded guilty in 2012 to transporting/receiving a 9mm handgun and ammunition in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(b); he was sentenced to 18 months' custody and 2 years' supervised release.
After completing supervised release, Rodgers filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in 2018 seeking to vacate the conviction.
Rodgers argued his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to rely on United States v. Havelock (D. Ariz. 2008) to challenge the § 924(b) “interstate” element.
The District Court denied coram nobis relief, finding counsel’s failure to invoke Havelock reasonable because that decision was out-of-circuit and factually distinguishable.
The District Court applied coram nobis standards and Strickland for ineffective-assistance review; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding counsel was not deficient because raising Havelock would have been meritless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodgers received ineffective assistance of counsel justifying coram nobis because counsel failed to raise Havelock to attack § 924(b)’s interstate element	Counsel failed to investigate and failed to raise Havelock, which Rodgers says would show no interstate commerce — thus prejudice and defective representation	Havelock is non-binding and factually distinguishable; arguing it would be meritless, so counsel’s omission was objectively reasonable	Affirmed: counsel not ineffective; failure to press a meritless Havelock argument does not support coram nobis relief

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (recognizes coram nobis as an extraordinary post-conviction remedy)
Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (sets coram nobis factors a petitioner must meet)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (governs ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
United States v. Havelock, 560 F. Supp. 2d 828 (D. Ariz. 2008) (out-of-circuit district court decision relied on by petitioner)
United States v. Regalado, 518 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (failure to raise a meritless argument is not ineffective assistance)
Denedo v. United States, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (characterizes coram nobis as an extraordinary remedy)