United States v. Vasquez , 515 F. App'x 757 ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 20, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-4168
v. (D.C. No. 2:07-CR-00453-TS-1)
ERIC VASQUEZ, (D. Utah)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Eric Vasquez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count
of failure to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). The district court
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
sentenced him to concurrent terms of fifteen months’ imprisonment on the
conviction for failure to appear and ten years’ imprisonment on the conspiracy
conviction. On June 22, 2012, Vasquez filed a “Petition for Relief Pursuant to
Writ of Coram Nobis Under § 1651(a) to Expunge Escape Charge in the Interest
of Justice.” 1 The court denied the petition and Vasquez appeals. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Vasquez cannot obtain coram nobis relief unless he demonstrates “due
diligence in bringing [his] claims, that other remedies are unavailable or
inadequate, and that the underlying trial error was fundamental, meaning the error
resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Thody, 460 F.
App’x 776, 778 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished disposition) (citing United States v.
Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511-12 (1954)). Here, the district court denied relief
because Vasquez failed to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was unavailable or
inadequate.
At the time Vasquez filed his coram nobis petition, he was no longer in
custody on the failure-to-appear conviction and, thus, he could no longer file a
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (providing movant
must be “in custody” to pursue relief under § 2255); Mays v. Dinwiddie, 580 F.3d
1136, 1141 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding petitioner who was still serving the longer
1
As the Government correctly notes, Vasquez was not convicted of escape.
-2-
of two concurrent sentences was no longer “in custody” on the shorter sentence
once the shorter sentence expired). Vasquez has nevertheless failed to show that
relief under § 2255 was unavailable or would have been inadequate. See Prost v.
Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 589 (10th Cir. 2011) holding § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective only if the remedy itself is infirm, “not the failure to use it or to
prevail under it”); see also United States v. Ricketts, 494 Fed. App’x 876, 877
(10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished disposition) (evaluating whether § 2255 was
available to movant while he was still in custody); United States v. Lester, 453
Fed. App’x 810, 811 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished disposition) (same); cf.
Rawlins v. Kansas, No. 12-3138, 2013 WL 1799992 (10th Cir. April 30, 2013)
(noting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was not available to petitioner seeking writ of coram
nobis because the state courts did not complete post-conviction review until “long
after” petitioner’s sentence expired).
In his coram nobis petition, Vasquez asserts his plea was not knowing and
voluntary because of the ineffective assistance of his counsel. On appeal, he
appears to assert he could not bring this claim under § 2255 because his written
plea agreement contains a waiver of his appellate and post-conviction rights. This
argument is unavailing because the waiver did not prevent Vasquez from filing a
§ 2255 motion challenging the validity of his plea agreement while he was still in
custody on the failure-to-appear conviction. See United States v. Pinson, 584
F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding this type of § 2255 claim goes “to the
-3-
validity of the plea agreement itself . . . and so the waiver [of appellate rights]
cannot preclude the claim”); cf. United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187
(10th Cir. 2001) (“[A] plea agreement waiver of postconviction rights does not
waive the right to bring a § 2255 petition based on ineffective assistance of
counsel claims challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver.”).
Because Vasquez has failed to show he could not have raised his claims in
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he may not challenge his conviction or sentence
through a writ of coram nobis. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-