[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 80 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :8 4- cr-0 07 58 -UU-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,

ve rs us ALFREDO JULIAN HASSUN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 11 , 20 13 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-14800 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 1 of 4Alfr ed o J ul ia n Has su n, a C ub anna ti on al an d fo rm er fe de ral pri so ne r,

ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a wri t o f erro r co ra m no bis . Relyin g o n Padil la v. Ken tu cky , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 47 3 (2 01 0) , Hass un all eg ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b as edonhi s t ria l at to rn ey ’s fai lu re t o a dv is e h im of th e d ep orta ti on co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lty to a co cai ne po ss es si on off en se in 19 85 . After r ev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Has su n’s m ot io n. 1 A writof e rro r co ra m no bis is “ av ai labl e to va cat e a co nv ic ti onwhen th e pe ti ti on er h as serve d h is sen te nc e an d i s n o l on ge r in cu st od y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pete r , 31 0 F .3d70 9, 7 12 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The wri t co ns ti tu te s “ anex tra or di na ry rem edy of l as t re so rt a va il ab le on ly in co m pe ll in g c irc um st an ces wher e n eces sa ry to ach ie ve jus ti ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ll s , 22 1 F .3d12 01 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). A pet it io ne r as se rti ng a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l m us t s ho w bo th th at(1) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edhi s d efen se . Stri ckl an d v . W as hi ng to n , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4 (1 98 4) . Befo re the Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d i ts 20 10 de ci si on in Padil la , m os t co urts he ldco un se l was un de r no co ns ti tu ti on al ob li ga ti on to advi se a cl ie ntof t he po ss ib le de po rta ti on co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lt y . Se e Padil la , 13 0 S . Ct. at

We reviewthe denial of coram nobis relief for a n abuse of

discretion. United States v. 1 Peter , 310 F.3d 709, 711 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 2

Case: 11-14800 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 2 of 414 81 n.9 (co ll ect in g c as es ). Our ci rcu itadhe redto th is vi ew. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v.

Ca mpb el l , 77 8 F .2d76 4, 7 68 -6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (ho ld in g t ha t co un se l i s n ot in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to advi se a de fen da ntof the de po rta ti on co ns eque nc es of a gu il ty ple a). In Padil la , th e Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t hi s v ie w, ho ld in g t ha t an at to rn ey ren de rs de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce b y fai li ng to advi se a no n- ci ti zencli en t t ha t a g ui lt y pl ea “ carr ie s a r is k o f de po rta ti on .” 13 0 S . Ct. at14 86 . Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r Padil la ap pl ie s re tro act iv el y , Hass un can no t s uc ceed on hi s u nd erl y in g i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m . There is no in di cat io n co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntwhen vi ewedin li gh t o f th e p ro fes si on al st an da rd s i n p la ce i n 1 98 5. Se e Str ic klan d , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 (no ti ng a co urt

“ m us t ju dg e th e rea so nabl en es s o f co un se l’s ch al le ng edco nduc t . . . vi ewedas o f th e ti m e o f co un se l’s co nduc t” ). Altho ug h Has su n a rg ue s h is pl ea was en te red ei gh t m on th s b efo re o ur

de ci si on in Ca mpb el l , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t d en y hi s m ot io n o n the gro un d t ha t Ca mpb el l ha d b een de ci de d a t t he ti m e o f Has su n’s pl ea. Rat he r, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d Has su n’s p le a was “ es se nt ia ll y co nt em po ran eo us []” with Ca mpb el l , andth atth e p ro fes si on al no rm s p res en t i n t he m id -1 99 0s , rel ie d upo n b y th e Supr em e Co urt i n Padil la , were n otinpl ace i n 19 85 . Tho se fin di ng s ar e n otcle arl y erro ne ou s, an d t hu s, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t

3 Case: 11-14800 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 3 of 4ab us e it s d is cret io n i n m ak in g t he m . Se e Peer v. Lewis , 60 6 F .3d13 06 , 13 11 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Fu rth erm or e, ev enif Has su n wer e ab le to sh ow co un se l’s 1 98 5 p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , he h as fai le d t o m eetth e p reju di ce p ro ng of Stri ckl an d . Hass un ’s affi da vi t s ta te s o nl y

th at , hadhe be enin fo rm edof t he co ns eque nc es of h is pl ea, h e wou ldno t h av e p le d g ui lt y . Padil la requi res a pe ti ti on er t o s ho w th ata de ci si on to rejectth e p le a b arg ai n “ wou ldha ve be enrat io na l und er the cir cu m st an ces ,” a sh owi ng Hass un ha s n otpro vi de d. Se e Pad il la , 13 0 S . Ct. at14 85 . AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 11-14800 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Page: 4 of 4