United States v. Anthony E. Marchesseault, 692 F. App'x 601

Marchesseault pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to one count of making false information and hoaxes (18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)(A)) and was sentenced to 12 months’ probation.
After probation ended, he repeatedly sought to “recall” or vacate his plea, filing motions construed by the district court as motions for reconsideration and, ultimately, as a coram nobis petition.
The district court denied his post‑conviction motions and struck his later filing titled “Final Report Administrative/Quality Recall Plea Agreement.”
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing should be treated as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis and whether such relief was available and timely.
The court concluded coram nobis was the appropriate vehicle (because Marchesseault was no longer in custody) but denied relief based on the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and the absence of a fundamental error warranting coram nobis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural vehicle for relief after sentence completed	Marchesseault sought to recall/vacate his plea via post‑judgment motions	Government/ district court treated filings as coram nobis because petitioner is no longer in custody	Court: Construed filings as a coram nobis petition and applied civil appeal timing rules
Availability of coram nobis (other remedies)	Seeks vacatur though not in custody; claims errors in plea proceedings	No other remedy available because §2255 and habeas require custody; coram nobis is the proper extraordinary remedy	Court: Coram nobis is the proper vehicle because sentence is served, so civil appeal rules apply
Merits — whether fundamental error exists to permit coram nobis	Argued defects in plea that he failed to raise earlier justify relief	Errors were non‑jurisdictional or could have been raised earlier; no newly discovered evidence or juror misconduct; no fundamental defect	Court: No fundamental error shown; coram nobis relief denied
Law‑of‑the‑case / preclusion from relitigation	Sought reconsideration after prior appeal and rulings	Earlier appellate rulings preclude relitigation; no applicable exception (no new evidence, no contrary controlling authority, not clearly erroneous)	Court: Law‑of‑the‑case bars relief; none of the exceptions apply

United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002) (stands for coram nobis standards and that jurisdictional errors may warrant coram nobis)
United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2000) (coram nobis is extraordinary; relief only for fundamental errors when no other remedy exists)
Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2000) (claims that could have been raised earlier are not cognizable in coram nobis)
State Exchange Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (standard of review for striking pleadings)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se briefs construed liberally but issues not briefed are abandoned)
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (court may recharacterize pro se filings to reflect substance)
United States v. Smith, 532 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2008) (guilty plea waives non‑jurisdictional challenges)
Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI, 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (§2255 is the usual vehicle for collateral attack while in custody)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 824 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2014) (explains law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its three exceptions)