United States v. Vongphakdy, 3:21-cr-00184

Background

In 2011 Vongphakdy filed an N-400 naturalization application, swore under penalty of perjury that his statements were true, and was naturalized on August 3, 2011.
In November 2013 he was arrested for alleged child-sex offenses from 2008–2009 and in April 2014 pled guilty in North Carolina to second-degree sexual offenses; he was sentenced to prison.
In July 2021 the United States indicted Vongphakdy under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) for allegedly procuring naturalization by false statements on his N-400 (representing he had not committed an unarrested offense).
Defendant moved in limine to exclude his state-court pleas/convictions, arguing they were tainted by Sixth Amendment violations (ineffective assistance of counsel).
The district court denied the motion for three independent reasons: (1) the motion was, in substance, a motion to suppress and was untimely under the court’s pretrial schedule; (2) the federal court was an improper forum to collaterally attack eight‑year‑old state convictions that had not been challenged in state court; and (3) even on the merits the defendant failed to show constitutionally deficient assistance under Strickland.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion label / Timeliness	Gov: Motion is untimely; substance is a suppression claim and must meet Rule 12/timing	Vongphakdy: Styled it as a motion in limine to exclude convictions	Court: Motion is a motion to suppress in substance and was untimely under the standing order; denied on that basis
Proper forum / collateral attack	Gov: State convictions stand unless challenged in state courts; federal trial should not be used to invalidate them	Vongphakdy: Seeks to exclude convictions as unconstitutional without having sought state relief	Court: Improper collateral attack; federal court will not entertain challenge without state remedies exhausted; denied
Ineffective-assistance (Strickland)	Gov: Defendant fails to show counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable or prejudicial	Vongphakdy: State counsel failed to warn that pleas risked denaturalization/deportation	Court: Defendant did not satisfy Strickland first prong; counsel’s performance not shown constitutionally deficient; denied
Padilla / immigration-advice obligation	Gov: Padilla inapplicable here—defendant was a citizen; denaturalization is not an automatic, statutory consequence like deportation	Vongphakdy: Padilla required advising about immigration consequences of plea (denaturalization/deportation)	Court: Padilla distinguished—automatic deportation differs from potential denaturalization that requires separate government action; no duty to give detailed immigration‑specialty advice here; denied

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hurst, 228 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing motions in limine from motions to suppress; substance controls label)
United States v. Fígaro‑Benjamín, 392 F. Supp. 3d 280 (D.P.R. 2019) (late suppression motion treated by substance despite in‑limine label)
United States v. Mangine, 302 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2002) (same: disguised late motion to suppress)
Griffin v. Balt. Police Dep’t, 804 F.3d 692 (4th Cir. 2015) (federalism and respect for state courts)
Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886) (federal courts should avoid unnecessary interference with state tribunals)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) (state trials are decisive events deserving federal comity)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (exhaustion doctrine in habeas protects state courts' role)
Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907 (4th Cir. 1997) (exhaustion requirement and its purpose)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise of clear deportation consequences of a plea)
United States v. Swaby, 855 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2017) (applying Padilla where deportation consequences were clear)
United States v. Hatem, 884 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting denaturalization requires government suit and is not automatic removal)