United States v. Guzman-Ferreiras

16‐3192‐cr United States v. Guzman‐Ferreiras UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTʹS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, 16‐3192‐cr v. LUIS RODRIGUEZ‐HILARIO, Defendant, SERGIO DONATO GUZMAN‐FERREIRAS, Defendant‐Appellant. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by * designation. FOR APPELLEE: Barbara A. Masterson and Gregory L. Waples, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Eugenia A.P. Cowles, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLANT: Labe M. Richman, New York, New York. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant‐appellant Sergio Donato Guzman‐Ferreiras (ʺGuzmanʺ) appeals the order of the district court entered July 21, 2016, denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis vacating his conviction. Guzmanʹs petition arose from his March 19, 2004, judgment of conviction upon his guilty plea to transportation of illegal aliens within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Guzman is no longer in custody, and is facing deportation as he has been ordered removed from the United States. Guzman argues that his trial counsel failed to advise him accurately about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. We review the district courtʹs decision denying a writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion. Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1996). ʺA writ of error coram nobis is an ʹextraordinary remedy,ʹ typically available only when habeas relief is unwarranted because the petitioner ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals