United States v. Miles, 553 F. App'x 846

In July 2001 Miles applied for a K-1 visa and falsely stated his fiancée was 18 though she was 14; the couple later married and Miles again misstated her age on a February 2002 adjustment-of-status form.
Miles was indicted under the Mann Act; that indictment was dismissed and a new indictment alleged the underlying state crime as forcible rape; Miles successfully negotiated a plea to a superseding information charging a false statement on the K-1 visa application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3).
As part of the plea agreement Miles waived collateral challenges to his conviction except for sentencing error; he did not appeal his conviction and a § 2255 motion was denied based on the waiver.
Upon release, Miles filed a coram nobis petition arguing the superseding information misstated the date/document of the offense (alleging he only learned of that error in 2012) and claiming actual innocence and other defects.
The district court denied coram nobis on two grounds: the collateral-attack waiver covered the petition, and this court had already rejected the same arguments in denying a certificate of appealability (COA).
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding coram nobis was unavailable because § 2255 had been an adequate remedy and Miles failed to show a miscarriage of justice or factual innocence; the record showed Miles knew the plea related to the visa application.

Issue	Miles' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Availability of coram nobis given prior § 2255 proceedings	Coram nobis is proper because he only discovered an error in the indictment’s date/document after the COA denial (so § 2255 was inadequate)	§ 2255 was available and adequate; Miles previously litigated and waived collateral attack except for sentencing	Denied — coram nobis unavailable because § 2255 was an adequate remedy and Miles failed to show inadequacy
Actual/factual innocence based on alleged indictment error	The superseding information conflated two separate false statements; Miles claims he pled to a different document/date and is factually innocent	Miles admitted false statement concerning the visa application in plea colloquy and written plea; no colorable showing of factual innocence	Denied — no miscarriage of justice; record shows Miles understood the plea facts
Effect of collateral-attack waiver on coram nobis relief	Waiver should not bar coram nobis for jurisdictional or constitutional defects or clear miscarriages of justice	The waiver bars the legal objections here; Miles’ actual-innocence claim fails on the merits so no waiver exception	Denied — waiver bars relief and exception does not apply

Morgan v. United States, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy for justice in rare cases)
Klein v. United States, 880 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1989) (burden on petitioner to show error is jurisdictional or constitutional and causes miscarriage of justice)
Klein v. Neal, 45 F.3d 1395 (10th Cir. 1995) (factual-innocence exception intended for wrongful convictions of the wrong person)
Beavers v. Saffle, 216 F.3d 918 (10th Cir. 2000) (colorable showing of factual innocence can demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for coram nobis denials)
Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not alone render that remedy inadequate)
United States v. Payne, 644 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2011) (coram nobis unavailable unless § 2255 relief was unavailable or inadequate)
DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (standards for in forma pauperis on appeal)