United States v. Faison
956 F. Supp. 2d 267
D.D.C.2013Background
- In June 1999 Burudi Faison pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense) and was sentenced to 60 months; he completed that sentence in 2003.
- In 2007 Faison was convicted in New York of a drug conspiracy; the government filed prior-felony enhancement papers based on his 1999 § 924(c) conviction, increasing his New York sentencing exposure.
- In March 2012 Faison filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis seeking to vacate the 1999 conviction, principally arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the record lacked a factual basis for his guilty plea.
- The government opposed, arguing coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy unavailable here because of Faison’s long delay, failure to seek direct review, and lack of fundamental error or sufficiently adverse consequences.
- The court found coram nobis to be Faison’s exclusive procedural vehicle (he is not in custody), but concluded he failed to satisfy the remaining coram nobis requirements and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis as remedy | Coram nobis is appropriate because Faison is no longer in custody and § 2255 is unavailable | Coram nobis is extraordinary and rarely granted; other requirements must be met | Coram nobis is the exclusive procedural vehicle here (not in custody) but availability alone is not decisive |
| Delay / valid reasons for late attack | Faison lacked reason to challenge 1999 plea until Nelson clarified enhancement consequences years later | Delay (≈12 years) is unjustified; waiting after later conviction is not a sound reason | Held: Faison failed to show valid reasons for his long delay and gave no explanation for waiting years after Nelson and his 2007 sentence |
| Adverse consequences from the conviction | The 1999 conviction caused a tangible adverse consequence: a sentence enhancement in 2007 | A prior conviction’s role in making a defendant eligible for enhancement is not sufficiently adverse to warrant coram nobis | Held: The 2007 enhancement is not a sufficiently adverse consequence to justify coram nobis relief |
| Fundamental error: ineffective assistance / lack of factual basis | Counsel allegedly focused only on sentence length, not voluntariness; plea lacked factual basis and court failed to advise on elements | Allegations are vague, conclusory, unsupported; plea counsel’s advice to plead guilty is not per se ineffective; factual-basis challenge could have been raised on direct appeal | Held: Claims are conclusory and insufficient to establish Strickland prejudice or fundamental error; factual-basis claim is barred for failure to raise on direct review |
Key Cases Cited
- Denedo v. United States, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy and rarely granted)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Hansen, 906 F. Supp. 688 (D.D.C. 1995) (coram nobis framework and prerequisites)
- United States v. Nelson, 484 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2007) (interpreting § 924(c) conviction as a felony drug offense for enhancement)
- United States v. Cassell, 530 F.3d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (applying Strickland standard in this circuit)