United States v. Orvil Hassebrock, 21 F.4th 494

Orvil Hassebrock was convicted in 2010 of tax evasion and willful failure to file; his direct appeal was affirmed. (United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906.)
He completed his prison term in 2013 and had supervised release terminated in 2014.
About five years after release he filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis raising ineffective-assistance, trial-error, and constitutional challenges to tax-penalty authority.
The district court construed the filing as a §2255 motion and dismissed it as an unauthorized successive petition; Hassebrock then moved under Rule 60(b), which was denied.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit addressed whether Rule 58’s separate-document requirement applies to coram nobis petitions and whether the appeal was timely; the court held Rule 58 applies and Hassebrock’s appeal was timely.
On the merits the court denied coram nobis relief because Hassebrock could have raised the arguments earlier (and had previously raised ineffective-assistance in a §2255), failing the ‘‘sound reasons’’ requirement for coram nobis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 apply to coram nobis dispositions?	Rule 58 governs entry of judgment; without a separate document the 150‑day deemed-entry rule applies, making Hassebrock's appeal timely.	Gov't argued Rule 58 might not apply or was waived by appellant.	Rule 58 applies to coram nobis; appeal timely under the 150‑day rule.
Did Hassebrock waive reliance on Rule 58 by asking the court to “consider Rule 58 waived”?	Hassebrock’s pro se filings did not intend to waive the 150‑day deemed-entry rule—only referenced waiver of the separate-document form.	Gov't asserted appellant waived the Rule 58 claim, defeating jurisdiction over the underlying denial.	Court rejects waiver argument; construed pro se submissions narrowly and proceeds.
Was the district court correct to treat the filing as a §2255 motion rather than coram nobis?	Hassebrock contends he filed coram nobis because he was not in custody.	District court construed it as §2255 and dismissed as successive.	Government concedes the construction was erroneous; the filing is coram nobis.
Is Hassebrock entitled to coram nobis relief on the merits?	He asserted ineffective assistance and other trial errors warranting relief.	Gov't: claims were or could have been raised earlier; ineffective-assistance already litigated and rejected in §2255.	Denied: petitioner failed to show sound reasons for delay and cannot relitigate claims previously raised.

United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
United States v. Delhorno, 915 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2019) (explaining coram nobis availability and standards)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) (on separate-document requirement and appeal timing)
United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Rule 58 to coram nobis where finality was unclear)
Bell v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 982 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussing Rule 58 entry and appeal deadlines)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (coram nobis is for persons no longer in custody)
Perry v. Sheet Metal Workers' Local No. 73 Pension Fund, 585 F.3d 358 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 58 separate-document requirement applies outside listed exceptions)

AFFIRMED