Case: 18-10299 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10299 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:89-cr-00012-FAM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OLUWATOYIN UTOH, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 22, 2019) Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10299 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 2 of 7 Oluwatoyin Utoh immigrated to the United States from Nigeria in 1978. Just more than ten years later, in 1989, she pled guilty in federal court to filing a false passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. She was also convicted in Georgia state court the year before of four counts of forgery and financial transaction card theft. The Board of Immigration Appeals ordered her removed from the country in 1999, but she has not been deported, and she is not still in custody. Utoh moved in the District Court for referral to a volunteer attorney program and to reopen her case. Her underlying contention is that the district judge who sentenced her never informed her of the collateral immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The Court denied the Motion. Utoh initiated this appeal. We affirm the District Court’s denial of Utoh’s Motion, which we construe as a petition for a writ of coram nobis, 1 because the Court did not abuse its discretion. Utoh has suffered no injustice that would make relief appropriate. Because we write for the parties, we set out facts only as they are needed to support our analysis. I. 1 A writ of coram nobis is an “extraordinary remedy of last resort available only in compelling circumstances where necessary to achieve justice.” United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000). Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, we may issue the writ only to correct “errors ‘of the most fundamental character.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69, 35 S. Ct. 16, 19 (1914)). 2 Case: 18-10299 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 3 of 7 We begin by assessing our own jurisdiction. We may review only “final decisions” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because judgment has already been entered in the case from which Utoh appeals, we treat this post-judgment proceeding as “free-standing litigation.” Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc., 672 F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 594 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir. 2010)). “[A]n order is deemed final if it disposes of all the issues raised in the motion that initially sparked the postjudgment proceedings.” Id. In 2017, Utoh filed in the District Court a boilerplate document, presumably intended for use by pro se litigants, entitled “Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program.” This is the Motion we must evaluate to determine whether the Court’s decision was “final.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals