United States v. Mirza
755 F. Supp. 2d 329
D. Mass.2010Background
- Mirza pled guilty to 13 counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, arising from misappropriation of corporate funds from Network Engines, Inc. (NENG).
- As International Sales Administrator at NENG, Mirza prepared fictitious expense forms, submitted fake vendor invoices, and forged wire transfer forms to transfer funds to her Paytech account.
- From November 2005 through September 2006 Mirza allegedly stole at least $110,451 from NENG.
- She was sentenced in October 2008 to six months in custody, 24 months of supervised release, and restitution of $306,728.
- Mirza subsequently pursued post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, sought supplementation, and moved to treat the § 2255 motion as a writ of error coram nobis to reduce restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis may reach restitution claims | Mirza argues coram nobis can correct restitution errors. | Massachusetts court precedent and First Circuit hesitancy limit coram nobis relief for restitution. | Coram nobis is unlikely for restitution; relief denied on this ground. |
| Whether the restitution amount itself was supported by reliable evidence | Huron Consulting charges were justified by investigation needs. | Invoices lacked detail; some charges may be unrelated to the investigation. | There was a modicum of reliable evidence supporting Huron charges; restitution affirmed on this point. |
| Whether collateral consequences of restitution amount constitute a continuing harm warranting coram nobis relief | Overly broad restitution could create ongoing collateral consequences. | Restitution payments resemble sunk costs and do not constitute ongoing harm. | Collateral consequences do not meet the coram nobis requirement. |
| Whether counsel's alleged ineffective assistance constitutes fundamental error warranting coram nobis relief | Counsel failed to obtain documents affecting restitution calculations. | No showing that errors would have changed restitution amount. | Ineffective assistance claims do not rise to a fundamental error mandating coram nobis relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. United States, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis relief available to correct fundamental errors in judgment)
- Sawyer v. United States, 239 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (All Writs Act scope and coram nobis—extraordinary remedy)
- Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2008) (patent error standard and limitations of coram nobis)
- Enwonwu v. United States, 199 Fed.Appx. 6 (1st Cir. 2006) (coram nobis relief extraordinary; not routinely available for counsel claims)
- United States v. Iacaboni, 592 F.Supp.2d 216 (D. Mass. 2009) (restitution challenges not generally fundamental errors for coram nobis)
- United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2007) (restitution errors not a fundamental miscarriage of justice)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 202 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2000) (harmless error when restitution amount differs from potential maximum)
- Salas-Fernandez v. United States, 620 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (modicum of reliable evidence required for restitution under MVRA)