United States v. Ramirez, 514 F. App'x 42

Ramirez challenged his 2000 sentence imposed after pleading guilty to five counts including conspiracy to murder and narcotics offenses.
He sought coram nobis relief and later a reconsideration of denial; he also argued right to be present at sentencing under Rule 43 and the Constitution.
District court denied his coram nobis and reconsideration motions; Ramirez, initially pro se, is now represented by counsel on appeal.
The district court had indicated a sentence in a written sentencing opinion before Ramirez’s in-person sentencing but did not recite the sentence in open court.
The overall sentence amounted to 48 years, to be served consecutively on multiple counts, as provided by the plea agreement and guidelines discussion.
The written judgment stated 48 years as an undifferentiated total, while the sentencing opinion detailed count-by-count allocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief is available here	Ramirez argues for extraordinary relief to correct a sentence.	Government contends coram nobis requires compelling justice and timely pursuit.	Affirmed; coram nobis denied due to lack of compelling justice and long-delayed relief.
Whether Ramirez had a right to be sentenced in open court	Ramirez asserts violation of Rule 43 and due process by not reciting the sentence orally.	District court credited an earlier indicated sentence and orderly process; no due process violation shown.	Open-court sentencing is required; error in not reciting orally but not grounds for relief here.
Whether the sentence was improperly imposed or excessive	Ramirez contends misalignment between maximums and total sentence or lack of separate per-count sentences.	Sentence properly authorized by plea, statutes, and guidelines; total 48 years permissible with consecutive terms.	No basis to overturn; sentence authorized and aligned with plea and guidelines.

Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) (coram nobis requires compelling justice, sound reasons for delay, and continued legal consequences)
Porcelli v. United States, 404 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2005) (coram nobis review is for where §2255 unavailable and finality issues apply)
United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (coram nobis is not available where alternative remedies exist)
United States v. Labbe, 588 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2009) (indicates advisory value of indicating a likely sentence prior to hearing)
United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2000) (writ of coram nobis is remedy for those no longer in custody; sentencing ceremonial importance)
United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) (supreme court on substantial rights and coram nobis relief)