United States v. Oliver Ireland

USCA11 Case: 22-11878 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11878
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OLIVER IRELAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cr-60021-KMM-2
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11878 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11878
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Oliver Ireland, a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s denial of his third petition for a writ of
error coram nobis.
In 2017, Ireland agreed, through counsel, to plead guilty
knowingly and intentionally to one count of using a communica-
tion facility to commit or facilitate the crime of knowingly pos-
sessing with intent to distribute a detectable amount of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). The district court sentenced him to
48 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 1 year of supervised
release.
In 2018, Ireland filed a motion for post-conviction relief un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel,
which the district court denied on the merits. At some point, he
discharged his custodial sentence and completed his supervised re-
lease term.
Ireland filed the instant petition, his third, in 2022, arguing
that he was actually innocent of the underlying offense and that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel, who allegedly made cer-
tain misrepresentations. The district court denied the petition, not-
ing that it was virtually identical to an earlier petition, which it had
previously denied, and that, while he had appealed the denial of
that petition, he had failed to prosecute his appeal. Further, in the
USCA11 Case: 22-11878 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 3 of 6
22-11878 Opinion of the Court 3
court’s earlier denial, it had noted that Ireland had not indicated
why he could not have presented his arguments previously “or by
using some other procedural avenue,” and that some of his claims
were similar to ones he made in his § 2255 motion.
On appeal, Ireland argues that the district court erred in
summarily denying his third petition, reiterating his arguments
from below. Rather than filing a response brief, the government
has moved for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing sched-
ule, arguing that Ireland has not shown he was entitled to relief.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-
come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap-
peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 Under our local rules, a motion for summary
affirmance shall postpone the due date for the filing of any remain-
ing brief until we rule on such a motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
We review a district court’s denial of a petition for writ of
error coram nobis for an abuse of discretion. Alikhani v. United
States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). An error of law is an
1 Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued
prior to September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.
Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-11878 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11878
abuse of discretion. Id. “When review is only for abuse of discre-
tion, it means that the district court had a range of choice and that
we cannot reverse just because we might have come to a different
conclusion . . . .” United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th
Cir. 2021) (internal quotations omitted).
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, gives federal courts au-
thority to issue writs of error coram nobis. United States v. Mills,
221 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000). A writ of error coram nobis
offers a remedy “to vacate a conviction when the petitioner has
served his sentence and is no longer in custody, as is required for
post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Pe-
ter, 310 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002). It offers the remedy of va-
cating a conviction because of the lingering results of convictions,
including implications for civil rights or heavier penalties for sub-
sequent offenses. Id.The writ, however, may issue only when (1) “there is and
was no other available avenue of relief” and (2) “the error involves
a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not
been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding
itself irregular and invalid.” Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734 (emphasis
added). Moreover, a district court may consider a coram nobis pe-
tition only where the petitioner presents sound reasons for failing
to seek relief earlier. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512
(1954).
When appropriate, we review the denial of a motion for re-
consideration, whether brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or
USCA11 Case: 22-11878 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 5 of 6
22-11878 Opinion of the Court 5
60(b), for abuse of discretion. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211,
1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 60(b)); Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of
Fla., 243 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2001) (Rule 59(e)). 2 A motion
for reconsideration, however, “cannot be used to relitigate old mat-
ters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee
Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009).
In addition, there is a strong presumption that a defendant’s
statements during a plea colloquy are true. United States v. Gon-
zalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796, 800 n.8 (11th Cir. 1987).
Here, we grant the government’s motion for summary affir-
mance. The district court correctly concluded that Ireland did not
present a sound reason for failing to seek relief earlier. Morgan,
346 U.S. at 512. The claims he presented in his third petition did
not rely on any evidence that was new or otherwise unavailable in
2018, when he filed his § 2255 motion, and his assertions about
when he discovered his counsel’s alleged misrepresentations were
non-specific, especially as to its timing. Moreover, he did, in fact,
raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his § 2255 motion,
showing that he did have an opportunity to seek relief earlier and
through another procedural avenue. Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512;
Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734. Further, his assertions about his plea
2 We note that an appeal from an order granting or denying an application for
a writ of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for certain purposes.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(C).
USCA11 Case: 22-11878 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/02/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11878
being involuntary are belied by the record, which shows that he
pled guilty to the offense for which he was charged and agreed that
he was guilty during the plea colloquy, in statements which we
strongly presume are true. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d at 800 n.8.
Finally, to the extent that Ireland’s third petition sought re-
consideration of the denial of a prior petition, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in rejecting those reiterated arguments. See
Sanderlin, 243 F.3d at 1285; Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216. As the district
court found, and Ireland has conceded, his second and third peti-
tions were “virtually identical” to his initial petition, failing to pre-
sent any ground for reconsideration. Wilchombe, 555 F.3d at 957.
For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Ireland’s third petition for a writ of
error coram nobis. Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734. Thus, the govern-
ment’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law, Groendyke
Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162, so we GRANT the government’s
motion for summary affirmance and DENY its motion to stay the
briefing schedule as moot per 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
AFFIRMED.