United States v. Rocky Mountain Corporation , 442 F. App'x 875 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, INCORPORATED, Rocky Mountain
Corporation, Kenneth Odell Crawford-President & Registered
Agent; Joyce Crawford-Secretary,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00058-sgw-6; 7:10-cv-00490-sgw)
Submitted: July 26, 2011 Decided: August 9, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Jeb T. Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney,
Ramin Fatehi, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rocky Mountain Corporation appeals the district
court’s amended order of forfeiture and its denial of Rocky
Mountain’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis. * Rocky
Mountain maintains its underlying guilty plea to conspiracy to
launder money and evade currency reporting requirements was
involuntary and that it was denied effective assistance of
counsel. We affirm.
Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that is
available only under circumstances compelling relief in order to
achieve justice. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512-13
(1954). The burden is on Rocky Mountain to show that it is
entitled to relief; the challenged proceedings are presumed to
be correct. Id. To meet its burden, Rocky Mountain must show
that a more usual remedy is unavailable; that valid reasons
exist for not attacking its conviction earlier; that adverse
consequences flow from the conviction so that there exists a
case or controversy; and that the error is of the most
*
Although Rocky Mountain’s notice of appeal identifies both
orders as the basis for this appeal, Rocky Mountain has failed
to raise, and has therefore abandoned, any argument with respect
to the amended order of forfeiture. See Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999).
2
fundamental character. Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d
758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002).
Rocky Mountain has failed to meet its burden to show
that valid reasons exist for not attacking its conviction
earlier. Although there is no firm limitation of time within
which a writ of coram nobis will lie, petitioners are required
to demonstrate that “sound reasons exist[] for failure to seek
appropriate earlier relief.” Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512. We hold
that Rocky Mountain’s bare assertion that it received
ineffective assistance of counsel is insufficient to demonstrate
a valid reason for waiting more than one year to challenge its
conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3