FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 3, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 18-6119 v. ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN MILES, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:06-CR-00096-HE-1) _________________________________ Don P. Chairez, Law Offices of Don Chairez, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Defendant- Appellant. Steven W. Creager, Assistant United States Attorney (Robert J. Troester, First Assistant United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff- Appellee. _________________________________ Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ HARTZ, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Defendant Alexander Christian Miles appeals the denial of his second petition for a writ of coram nobis. He pleaded guilty in 2009 to submitting a false affidavit in connection with an application for a visa for a 14-year-old girl from Cambodia to whom he was engaged. He has already unsuccessfully challenged that judgment in a direct appeal, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a previous petition for a writ of coram nobis. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s denial of his second petition because each of its claims for relief either had been raised by Defendant in earlier proceedings and rejected by this court, or could have been raised in those proceedings and was inexcusably neglected. I. BACKGROUND Defendant, age 43 at the time, married a 14-year-old Cambodian girl, S.K., in a Cambodian wedding ceremony in October 2001. The previous July he had applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for a K-1 visa on S.K.’s behalf, and represented in his affidavit in support of the application that she was 18 years old. The visa was granted and he and S.K. moved to New York, where they were married in December 2001. In February 2002, S.K. applied to the INS for adjustment of status, and Defendant again lied about her age on his affidavit in support of that application. In July 2002, Defendant and S.K. moved to Oklahoma. Shortly thereafter, federal prosecutors charged him with violating the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), which prohibits transporting a minor across state lines with intent to engage in sexual activity contrary to state law. After a jury was empaneled and sworn, but before any evidence or argument had been presented to it, the district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because it did not specify the underlying Oklahoma offense— leaving open the possibility that it was statutory rape, an offense to which Defendant’s marriage to S.K. would have provided a complete defense. 2 The government re-indicted Defendant under the Mann Act, this time specifying that the underlying Oklahoma offense was forcible rape. He moved to dismiss that indictment on double-jeopardy grounds, but the district court denied the motion and we affirmed after an interlocutory appeal. See United States v. Miles (Miles I), 327 F. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals