Superville v. United States, 284 F. Supp. 3d 364

Nekebwe Superville (non‑citizen) pled guilty (Feb 18, 2014) to conspiracy to distribute ≥1,000 kg marijuana (21 U.S.C. §846/§841) and money‑laundering conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §1956); cooperated and received a 5K.1 benefit.
Superville claimed his criminal counsel, Howard Greenberg, misadvised him that pleading guilty would likely not result in deportation, and that this advice induced the plea. He also consulted an immigration attorney who allegedly gave contrary, reassuring advice about pleas.
The written cooperation/plea agreement warned immigration consequences and stated removal was “presumptively mandatory”; Superville signed the agreement and acknowledged discussing it with counsel.
Both the magistrate judge at plea and the district judge at sentencing orally warned Superville under oath that his plea could lead to deportation; Superville affirmed understanding each time.
Superville filed a §2255 habeas petition (or coram nobis alternatively) in Oct. 2017, challenging counsel’s advice under Padilla/Lee; district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f)(4)	Superville waited until July 2017 (immigration arrest) to learn deportation was certain, so his §2255 claim is timely.	Court/ Government: a diligent person would have learned the deportation risk at plea/sentencing from plea agreement and judicial warnings; §2255(f)(4) period began then.	Denied as untimely — claim could have been discovered by sentencing (Oct 2014).
Ineffective assistance (Strickland prejudice prong) — Did counsel’s alleged erroneous immigration advice cause the plea?	Superville: would have gone to trial if he had known plea triggered mandatory deportation.	Court: contemporaneous plea‑agreement language, plea colloquy, and sentencing colloquy show he understood deportation risk; overwhelming evidence and a 10‑year mandatory exposure made trial irrational for him.	Denied — no reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial.
Writ of error coram nobis (delay and relief)	Alternative remedy because §2255 untimely; seeks vacatur based on ineffective assistance.	Court: coram nobis requires extraordinary circumstances and sound reasons for delay; Superville lacks ineffective‑assistance showing and acceptable reason for delay.	Denied — no entitlement to coram nobis; delay not excused.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise when deportation consequences are clear)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (prejudice analysis: defendant must show reasonable probability he would have refused plea and gone to trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for prejudice in guilty‑plea ineffective‑assistance claims)
Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (coram nobis standards; ineffective assistance can support coram nobis)