United States v. De Castro

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AMIN DE CASTRO

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 15-CR-114

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 13, 2021

MEMORANDUM

Juan R. Sanchez C.J.

Amin De Castro has filed a counseled Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis by which he seeks to vacate his 2017 conviction of being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Because the case upon which De Castro relies in support of his petition is not to be retroactively applied on collateral review and because he has not satisfied the requirements for plain error relief the petition will be denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

De Castro is a native of the Dominican Republic, who initially entered the United States on a passport from that country. In August 2012, he married a United States citizen. In January 2014, his wife submitted a Petition for Alien Relative (Immigration Form I-130) on his behalf. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a Notice approving the petition on June 10, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the U.S. Department of State notified De Castro that his immigrant visa application was eligible for further processing by the National Visa Center.

On September 22, 2014, a Philadelphia Police officer approached De Castro outside a vacant flower shop on the 1800 block of North 31^st Street, believing he fit the description of a suspect who reportedly had pointed a gun at children at that location. De Castro complied with the officer's request that he take his hand out of his pocket and in doing so, he revealed a pistol grip protruding from his pocket. The officer removed the weapon-a loaded Bersa Thunder .380 caliber pistol- and asked De Castro if he had identification or a license to carry a firearm. De Castro who admits that he knew he was an alien, acknowledged that he had neither. He was arrested that day and was later charged by indictment with the offense of being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A).

De Castro was tried before a jury and convicted on September 27 2016. However, the conviction was vacated and a new trial ordered on February 3, 2017, when the undersigned granted De Castro's Motion for a New Trial, finding trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation. In lieu of a new trial, De Castro opted to plead guilty. He was sentenced to time-served, a two-year period of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100.00. He appealed from the judgment of sentence, which the Third Circuit affirmed on October 29, 2018.

In the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, De Castro avers that on May 4, 2017, an Immigration Judge found he qualified as a lawful permanent resident and granted his request for voluntary departure to the Dominican Republic. He is thus no longer in custody and is not eligible for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He filed the instant petition on July 22, 2020, seeking relief from his conviction on the ground that the Government failed to prove he knew he was an alien who was illegally or unlawfully in the United States in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 21, 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). The Government responded to the petition on December 17, 2020, and the Court held oral argument on the petition on April 14, 2021.

DISCUSSION

“The writ of coram nobis was available at common law to correct errors of fact, … was allowed without limitation of time for facts that affect the ‘validity and regularity' of the judgment, and was used in both civil and criminal cases.” United States v Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507 (1954) (citations omitted).^[1] More recently, it has been used as a means of collaterally attacking a criminal conviction for a person who is no longer “in custody” and who therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 345 n.1 (2013); Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S 545, 552 (2011). The power and authority to issue the writ emanates from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.^[2] Morgan, 346 U.S. at 506-507.

“Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy and a court's jurisdiction to grant relief is of limited scope.” Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 106 (citing United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 1963)). Coram nobis relief may not issue if alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available. Ragbir v. United States, 950 F.3d 54, 62 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009)). “Use of the writ is appropriate to correct errors for which there was no remedy available at the time of trial and where ‘sound reasons' exist for failing to seek relief earlier.” Id. (quoting Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512). Thus, where a party is no longer in custody for purposes of § 2255 but faces continuing consequences as a result of being convicted, coram nobis can fill that gap. Id.; United States v. Rhines, 640 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157, 159 (3d Cir. 2012) (“The rare remedy of a writ of error coram nobis may be ‘used to attack allegedly invalid convictions which have continuing consequence, when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer ‘in custody' for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.'” (quoting Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 105-106)). “[T]he standard for obtaining relief” pursuant to the writ “is more stringent than that applicable on direct appeal or in habeas corpus.” Ragbir, 950 F.3d at 62.

At the outset, the Court takes note of the Third Circuit's March 2020 decision in In re Sampson, 954 F.3d 159, 161 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). In that case, Petitioner Sampson had sought leave to file a second or successive § 2255 petition. The onus was therefore on him to show that his motion either contained newly discovered evidence that would have been sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review that was not previously available. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). In ruling that Sampson had failed to meet the standard for certification of a second/successive petition, the Third Circuit found that the Supreme Court “did not set forth a new rule of constitutional law” in Rehaif. Id. “Rather it addressed what the statutes enacted by Congress require for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2).” Id. (emphasis in original). While Sampson's assertion that the “Supreme Court in Rehaif, had overturned a long-established interpretation of an important criminal statute, ” … “that [did] not transform its decision into a rule of constitutional law.” Id. As Sampson had failed to make “the required prima facie showing that his claim rests on a new, retroactively applicable rule of constitutional law, ” his application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion on the basis of Rehaif was denied.

The Court acknowledges that Sampson may not be technically binding on this case as it concerned an application to file a second/successive § 2255 application and not a petition for coram nobis relief. However, as Ragbir, Rhines and Stoneman all counseled, the standard for obtaining relief pursuant to the writ “is more stringent than that applicable on direct appeal or in habeas corpus.” 950 F.3d at 62. Thus, the Court believes Sampson's reasoning applies and De Castro's petition is properly denied on this basis. Regardless, De Castro's application fails in any event and in recognition of the judicial interests in finality, completeness and economy, the Court shall now explain why.

It has been said that “[c]oram nobis relief is limited and seeks out errors of the most fundamental character - the kind that renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Ragbir, supra. Earlier proceedings are presumptively correct and the petitioner bears the burden to show otherwise. Id. There are “five prerequisites for coram nobis relief: the petitioner (1) is no longer in custody; (2) suffers continuing consequences from the purportedly invalid conviction; (3) provides sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier; (4) had no available remedy at the time of trial; and (5) asserted error(s) of a fundamental kind.” Id. Applying this standard, the Court finds that Mr. De Castro has made a satisfactory showing of the five pre-conditions required to merit consideration of his coram nobis petition. As noted, the record evinces De Castro pled guilty to the charge of being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). He was sentenced on April 12, 2017 to time served, two years of supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of sentence, and an Immigration Judge granted his request for voluntary departure to his country of origin. He is thus no longer in custody, and because he is effectively barred from re-entry to the United States, he suffers from continuing consequences from his conviction. Rehaif v. United States was not decided until June 21, 2019, and thus in the highly unlikely event that it should be deemed retroactively applicable to coram nobis petitions, the Court finds that a sound reason would exist to excuse his failure to seek relief earlier.^[3]

The Court additionally finds the fourth element-unavailability of the remedy at time of trial-is satisfied. “Until Rehaif, § 922(g) had not been understood as the Supreme Court interpreted it there. No. knowledge-of-status element had previously been perceived in the statute, and no proof of it was required.” United States v. Nasir, 982 F.3d 144, 161 (3d Cir. 2020) (en banc). Hence, at the time of trial and his subsequent decision to plead guilty, a Rehaif claim simply did not exist for De Castro.

Finally ...