United States v. Hernandez-Monreal
404 F. App'x 714
4th Cir.2010Background
- Hernandez-Monreal sought relief via a writ of error coram nobis and a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after criminal judgment.
- The district court summarily dismissed the coram nobis petition as inapplicable and dismissed the § 2255 motion as untimely.
- The appeal challenges the district court’s dismissals and seeks relief on the merits of the coram nobis petition and habeas claims.
- The court notes unpublished per curiam status; unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- The court treats the district court’s error in dismissing coram nobis as harmless because the petition was meritless and Padilla arguments were unpersuasive.
- The court separately denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal as to habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis is applicable to a criminal judgment | Hernandez-Monreal relied on Padilla to claim ineffective assistance. | District court correctly held coram nobis inapplicable to collateral relief from judgment. | Harmless error; coram nobis relief affirmed in part. |
| Whether Hernandez-Monreal’s § 2255 motion was timely | Citizens rely on timing for collateral review. | Motion untimely and properly dismissed. | Untimely; district court’s timeliness ruling affirmed. |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Claims are substantial and debatable. | No reasonable jurist would find the district court’s ruling debatable. | COA denied; appeal dismissed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (writ of error coram nobis viable under All Writs Act)
- United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1988) (coram nobis relief after retroactive Supreme Court decision)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client whether plea carries deportation risk)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (debut of standard for debatable constitutional claims on procedural denial)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (requiring showing of debatable claims respective to § 2253)