United States v. Hernandez-Monreal , 404 F. App'x 714 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4777
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-MONREAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00337-LMB-1; 1:10-cv-00618-LMB)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Juan Antonio Hernandez-Monreal, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie
Bibighaus Hammerstrom, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Hernandez-Monreal seeks to appeal the district
court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of
error coram nobis and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. For the reasons explained
below, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition for
a writ of error coram nobis, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the remainder of this appeal.
Although the district court erred when it summarily
dismissed Hernandez-Monreal’s petition for a writ of error coram
nobis as inapplicable to a criminal judgment, that error was
harmless. Contrary to the district court’s reasoning, both the
United States Supreme Court and this court have granted relief
to federal prisoners under the writ of error coram nobis. See
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506-07, 512-13 (1954)
(noting the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis
under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006), and
affirming a district court’s issuance of a writ of error coram
nobis to vacate a conviction after the completion of the
petitioner’s term of imprisonment); United States v. Mandel, 862
F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988) (same).
The district court’s error was harmless because
Hernandez-Monreal’s petition was ultimately meritless.
Hernandez-Monreal relied upon the United States Supreme Court’s
2
recent decision in Padilla v. Kentucky to argue ineffective
assistance of counsel. See Padilla, 599 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.
Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010) (holding “counsel must inform her client
whether his plea carries a risk of deportation”). The record,
however, shows that during his Rule 11 hearing, Hernandez-
Monreal affirmatively acknowledged his understanding that his
plea “could definitely make it difficult, if not impossible, for
[him] to successfully stay legally in the United States.”
Hence, the trial court’s failure to consider Hernandez-Monreal’s
petition for a writ of error coram nobis was harmless. ∗
Next, we conclude that the trial court’s determination
that Hernandez-Monreal’s § 2255 motion was untimely is neither
debatable nor wrong. To the extent it denied habeas relief, the
district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will
not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
∗
Furthermore, nothing in the Padilla decision indicates
that it is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
review. See Mandel, 862 F.2d at 1075 (affirming district
court’s grant of a writ of error coram nobis vacating
convictions in light of a retroactive and dispositive Supreme
Court decision).
3
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Hernandez-Monreal has not made the requisite
showing.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
a writ of error coram nobis, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal as to the denial of habeas
relief. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4