United States v. Cosmo Fazio, 795 F.3d 421

Cosmo Fazio, an Italian-born lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2011 to a drug conspiracy charge pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a broad waiver of direct appeal and collateral-attack rights and a written warning that his plea "may" have immigration consequences, including automatic removal.
At the plea hearing the district court conducted an in‑court colloquy that reviewed the waiver and explicitly asked whether Fazio understood he could face automatic removal; Fazio answered that he did and confirmed he wanted to plead guilty regardless.
Plea counsel reviewed the plea agreement line‑by‑line and told Fazio there could be immigration consequences but expressed the view Fazio likely could avoid deportation; immigration counsel later advised removal was certain.
Fazio later moved to withdraw his plea and then filed a § 2255 motion, arguing counsel was ineffective under Padilla for failing to advise him that his plea would result in automatic deportation.
The district court denied relief, concluding any Padilla error was cured by the plea agreement and the court’s plea colloquy; the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Fazio's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of collateral-attack waiver	Waiver not knowing/voluntary and enforcement would be miscarriage of justice because counsel was ineffective re: immigration advice	Waiver was knowingly/voluntarily entered and enforceable; plea colloquy and agreement cured any counsel error	Waiver enforceable; entered knowingly and voluntarily; enforcing it is not a miscarriage of justice
Whether counsel performed deficiently under Padilla	Counsel failed to inform Fazio that the plea would make removal essentially certain (Padilla violation)	Counsel warned of possible immigration consequences and reviewed the plea agreement; district court’s colloquy also informed Fazio	Court assumed arguendo possible deficiency but found no prejudice because plea agreement and colloquy cured any error
Prejudice from alleged Padilla error	Had counsel properly advised, Fazio would not have pleaded guilty	Fazio expressly confirmed at plea he wanted to plead guilty despite removal risk; no testimony at evidentiary hearing showing he would have refused plea	No prejudice shown under Hill/Strickland; § 2255 relief denied
Effect of plea colloquy and agreement on Padilla claim	Written warning and court’s questions insufficient if counsel misled	Plea agreement language and detailed in-court colloquy satisfied Padilla notice requirement and cured any error	Plea agreement and colloquy cured any deficient advice; claim fails

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise when deportation consequence is clear)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty pleas)
United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001) (enforceability of appellate waivers)
United States v. Shedrick, 493 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2007) (plea agreement and colloquy can cure erroneous counsel predictions)
United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (counsel constitutionally deficient for failing to warn of near-certain removal)
United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) (defendants may waive fundamental rights)
United States v. Mabry, 536 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (benefits and enforceability of waivers)
United States v. Erwin, 765 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2014) (miscarriage‑of‑justice framework for waivers)