United States v. Butina
Criminal No. 2018-0218
| D.D.C. | Dec 16, 2021Background
- Mariia (Maria) Butina pleaded guilty on May 1, 2019 to one count of conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 951) and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
- With Butina’s consent, the court granted the Government’s motion for judicial removal; she was deported to Russia on October 25, 2019.
- On September 8, 2020, Butina filed pro se motions: a § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence, and handwritten-noted requests for writs of error coram nobis and audita querela seeking to vacate her conviction, sentence, and the removal order.
- The court found § 2255 relief unavailable because Butina is no longer in custody and is living abroad, and habeas jurisdiction therefore does not extend to her petition.
- The court held coram nobis and audita querela cannot be used to challenge a removal order, and that Butina’s handwritten margin notes failed to adequately plead cognizable coram nobis or audita querela claims as to her conviction or sentence.
- Result: Defendant’s motion to vacate was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255 habeas relief is available when petitioner is no longer in custody and is living abroad | U.S.: Habeas jurisdiction requires present custody; absent custody, court lacks jurisdiction | Butina: Seeks to vacate conviction and sentence under § 2255 despite being removed and living in Russia | Held: Denied — no jurisdiction under § 2255 because petitioner is not in custody |
| Whether coram nobis/audita querela can be used to vacate a removal order | U.S.: Coram nobis/audita querela cannot be used to attack removal orders; statutory limits bar review of removals for criminal conduct | Butina: Seeks to vacate the removal order along with conviction/sentence | Held: Denied — equitable writs cannot be used to review the removal order and petitioner consented to removal |
| Whether coram nobis/audita querela may vacate conviction/sentence where petitioner is not in custody | U.S.: These writs are narrow, available only for fundamental errors and are not a substitute for habeas when jurisdictional custody requirement is absent | Butina: Asks court to vacate conviction/sentence via coram nobis/audita querela after deportation | Held: Denied — writs do not provide relief here and are disfavored as substitute for habeas post-removal |
| Whether pro se handwritten margin notes sufficiently plead coram nobis/audita querela claims | U.S.: Pleadings must clearly present claims; conclusory or insufficiently pleaded requests are inadequate | Butina: Submitted coram nobis/audita querela requests as handwritten notations on a § 2255 filing | Held: Denied — margin notes fail to adequately plead cognizable coram nobis or audita querela claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (establishes that habeas corpus requires "in custody" jurisdictional predicate)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (explains habeas corpus’s traditional function is to secure release from illegal custody)
- Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (rejects habeas jurisdiction for aliens living freely abroad after removal)
- El-Hadad v. U.S., 377 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2005) (applies D.C. Circuit precedent to deny habeas relief to removed aliens living abroad)
- United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) (describes the ancient, limited nature of coram nobis relief)
- U.S. v. Clark, 977 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (disfavors improperly tacked-on coram nobis/audita querela claims in postconviction petitions)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards but must still plausibly present claims)