[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11139

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cv-00210-SDM-EAJ

STEPHEN OLUSEGUN BANJOKO, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 30, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-11139 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Stephen Banjoko, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his petition for a 

writ of error coram nobis.

1 According to his petition, Banjoko was a native and 

citizen of Nigeria and, in 2000, became a lawful permanent resident of the United 

States. In 2003, Banjoko pled guilty to conspiracy to commit witness tampering, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512(b)(1). Banjoko was sentenced to six 

months in prison and two years of supervised release, all of which he has 

completed. The Department of Homeland Security initiated deportation 

proceedings against him due to his conviction, and placed him in immigration 

detention.

In his coram nobis petition, Banjoko sought to vacate his federal conviction 

on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that (1) his trial attorney 

failed to advise him that his guilty plea carried the risk of deportation, and (2) if

Banjoko had known about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, he 

would have negotiated a different plea deal or proceeded to trial. Banjoko relied 

on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), which held that 

counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to advise the client that a guilty 

plea carried the risk of deportation. 

 1

“A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy available 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. Peter, 310 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002). We 

review a district court’s denial of coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion, “keeping in mind 

that an error of law is an abuse of discretion per se.” Id. at 711 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Case: 13-11139 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

The district court denied Banjoko’s coram nobis petition, concluding, in 

part, that Padilla did not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1075 (1989) (plurality 

opinion) (holding that “new constitutional rules of criminal procedure” generally

“will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new 

rules are announced”); see also Howard v. United States, 374 F.3d 1068, 1073-77 

(11th Cir. 2004) (applying the Teague retroactivity doctrine). Banjoko timely 

appealed.

Shortly after the district court denied Banjoko’s petition, the Supreme Court 

decided Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013), which 

wholly disposes of this appeal. In Chaidez, as in the present case, the petitioner 

challenged her convictions via a coram nobis petition on the ground that her trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise her of the immigration 

consequences of pleading guilty. Id. at __, 133 S. Ct. at 1106. The district court 

granted relief based on Padilla, but the Seventh Circuit reversed. Id. The Supreme 

Court upheld the Seventh Circuit’s denial of coram nobis relief, holding that 

Padilla established a “new rule” for retroactivity purposes, and that “defendants 

whose convictions became final prior to Padilla therefore cannot benefit from its 

holding.” Id. at __, 133 S. Ct. at 1113. 

Case: 13-11139 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaidez, we affirm the district 

court’s denial of Banjoko’s coram nobis petition.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11139 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 4 of 4