UNITED STATES v. QUINTIERI
547 F. App'x 32
2d Cir.2013Background
- Quintierri was sentenced on Oct. 6, 2000, to 366 days’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to knowingly possessing a counterfeit check (18 U.S.C. § 513(a)).
- Appellant argues counsel failed to advocate a downward departure to 364 days to avoid automatic removal as a deportable aggravated felon.
- He seeks relief via a writ of audita querela, arguing post-conviction remedy gaps merit extraordinary relief.
- The district court denied the writ; Quintieri appeals the denial to the Second Circuit.
- The court reviews such writs de novo and recognizes the writ generally fills gaps where collateral avenues are unavailable or defective.
- Discussion touches on whether ineffective-assistance and deportation-consequences information could be bases for such a writ, and on retroactivity of Padilla’s deportation guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether audita querela is available for an ineffective-assistance claim about sentencing. | Quintieri argues lack of effective counsel warrants audita querela relief. | Writ does not lie when §2255 could have addressed the issue; counsel’s failure not properly raised. | Denied; writ not available; §2255 would have sufficed. |
| Whether Padilla’s deportation guidance retroactivity affects the writ’s viability. | Padilla supports relief by addressing deportation risk not considered at sentencing. | Padilla is not retroactive; cannot bypass §2255 via audita. | Not retroactive and not a basis to grant the writ. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richter, 510 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2007) (de novo review of district court’s denial of audita querela)
- United States v. Couto, 311 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2002) (duty to inform about deportation consequences; supports broader attorney responsibility)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment deportation guidance required by counsel)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (non-retroactivity of Padilla for collateral review)
- Love v. Menifee, 333 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2003) (new rules affect retroactivity and postconviction remedies)
- United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (audita querela survives to fill gaps in postconviction relief)