Williams v. United States, 858 F.3d 708

Background

Sunday Williams, a Nigerian-born noncitizen, pleaded guilty in 2004 to making a material false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on a passport application; he was sentenced to three years’ probation.
Original indictment charged passport fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1542; venue/transfer issues arose and the government sought a superseding § 1001 indictment in the District of New Hampshire.
Williams alleges his trial counsel was ineffective in three respects: (1) agreeing to a superseding indictment without consulting him (effectively changing the plea process); (2) failing to advise or affirmatively misadvising him about immigration consequences of a guilty plea; and (3) allowing him to admit factual allegations (reference to a U.S. Passport) that now trigger permanent immigration bars.
Williams sought coram nobis relief years after his sentence ended to vacate or revise the factual basis of his conviction because the conviction’s factual findings render him permanently ineligible for visas/green card and subject to deportation under immigration law.
The district court denied coram nobis; the First Circuit reviews de novo where no evidentiary hearing occurred and affirms, concluding counsel was not constitutionally ineffective and, alternatively, that coram nobis relief would be inappropriate.

Issues

Issue	Williams' Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Counsel agreed to superseding indictment without client consent	Counsel unilaterally changed course and plea process; deficient under Strickland	Counsel’s choice was reasonable to avoid delay and re-arrest; no prejudice because result (§1001 charge) was inevitable	Counsel’s decision was not deficient; or, even if deficient, no prejudice — claim fails
Failure to advise of immigration consequences	Counsel did not warn Williams of deportation/immigration risk from plea	Padilla is not retroactive to convictions finalized before Padilla; failure-to-advise claims barred by Chaidez	Failure-to-advise claim barred by Chaidez; no relief on that theory
Affirmative misadvice about immigration consequences	Counsel affirmatively misled Williams (told him criminal case had nothing to do with immigration)	Court and record show Williams was informed in plea colloquies of deportation risk; no substantial likelihood of different outcome	Even if actionable, no prejudice — district court warned Williams of immigration consequences; claim fails
Plea factual basis included passport-specific facts	Counsel should have limited factual basis to "travel document" to avoid implication of false claim to citizenship with immigration consequences	Passport-specific facts were material to §1001 (materiality requires the statement could influence State Dept. decision); generic term likely insufficient and prosecutor wouldn’t accept change	Counsel not ineffective for allowing passport-specific factual admission; petitioner fails to show prejudice

Key Cases Cited

United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2012) (coram nobis standard and rarity of relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client if plea carries deportation risk)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla held to announce a new rule; Padilla not retroactive to convictions final before it)
United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161 (1st Cir. 2004) (venue analysis relied upon in district court)
United States v. Arcadipane, 41 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994) (materiality element under §1001)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (materiality is for the jury and requires tendency to influence a decision)
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis as extraordinary remedy)