Case Information
‐ ‐ cr ‐ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER ANUARY PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
At term Court Appeals Second Circuit, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, City th day October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: DENNY CHIN,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges
JANE A. RESTANI,
Judge. [*]
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee ‐ cr
LUIS RODRIGUEZ HILARIO,
Defendant
SERGIO DONATO GUZMAN FERREIRAS, Appellant
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x
*2 FOR APPELLEE: Barbara Masterson Gregory L. Waples,
Assistant United Attorneys, for Eugenia A.P. Cowles, Acting United Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Labe M. Richman, New York. Appeal from United District District of Vermont (Murtha, .).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment of is AFFIRMED appellant Sergio Donato ) appeals order entered July denying writ error coram vacating conviction. arose from upon transportation illegal aliens within States, violation 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). is no longer custody, facing been ordered removed States. argues failed him accurately assume parties ʹ familiarity facts, procedural history, issues appeal. review decision discretion. ʺ ʹ extraordinary remedy, ʹ typically available when habeas unwarranted because no longer custody. , F.3d 2014) (internal citation omitted). To obtain
relief, petitioner must show ʺ 1) there circumstances compelling such action achieve justice, reasons exist seek appropriate earlier relief, and continues suffer legal consequences his that may be remedied granting writ. ʺ Id. (quoting ,
The district court in Guzman based claimed in he was given immigration consequences guilty plea. First, record establishes Guzman was advised counsel and guilty plea ʺ may result deportation. ʺ written plea agreement, which he counsel both signed, ʺ [t]he defendant aware that, if he alien . . . guilty plea may result deportation. ʺ App. plea hearing asked if he was aware plea deportation, ʺ App. responded understood. The confirmed with had reviewed [Guzman] charge which pleading well each every paragraph agreement. App. These warnings were sufficient satisfy obligations, prior v. Kentucky U.S. (2010), Chaidez (2013) (holding could applied retroactively which decided); also Couto *4 179, 187 (2d Cir. ( ʺ We have held an attorney ʹ inform a client deportation a plea, without more, does not fall below an objective standard reasonableness. ʺ ), abrogated 559 at 370. [1]
Second, petition untimely. He not provided a reason why delayed over twelve years bringing petition. See [C]oram barred passage time. pled 4, He did not file a motion set aside Nor did file a motion set aside sentence pursuant It 2016, filed a In fact, specifically identified passage time a barrier her recalling specifically what gave Guzman. Accordingly, not a have considered all remaining arguments conclude they without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM court. COURT:
Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
[*] Jane Restani, Judge International Trade, sitting designation.
[1] note this does involve a situation where made affirmative misrepresentation conviction would consequences. e.g., while have where deportation mandatory, it objectively unreasonable post fail inform client certain, Rodriguez York No. cv WL *9 (E.D.N.Y. May (collecting cases), here long Padilla.