2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-6-2013 

# U S A v . R ob e r t S k effe r y

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 13-2489

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . R o be r t S k effe r y " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 420. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/420

### GLD

- 352 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 13

- 2489

___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.
ROBERT F. SKEFFERY, a/k/a Clyde Ferron

ROBERT F. SKEFF ERY
,

Appellant

____ ________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 3:05

- cr

- 00002

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 25, 2013 Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 6, 2013 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM
Robert Skeffery is a citizen of Jamaica whose criminal and immigration histories
are somewhat convoluted. For the purposes of this appeal, we look to his 20062



### conviction ( in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania )

for possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana, which we

affirmed in 2008. See generally United States v. Skeffery , 283 F. App ’ x 75 (3d Cir.

2008)

. Skeffery has filed a belated petition for writ of coram nob is, arguing that t his

conviction and sentence are “constitutionally invalid due to” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c),

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. He allege s that he was not properly
informed of the immigration consequences of his decision to plead guilty. The District

Court denied relief
, and Skeffery now seeks our review. 1



### The District Court’s decision was proper. As the District Court pointed out,
Skeffery specifically waived his right to collaterally attack his plea, 2 

### and we see nothing
in the record that would suggest either that the waiver was infirm or that enforcing it
would work a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Mabry , 536 F.3d 231, 237

– 39

(3d Cir. 2008) . And there would be no injustice because the theory upon which Sk effery

1 

### “In federal courts the authority to gr ant a writ of coram nobis is conferred by the All Writs Act, which permits ‘courts established by Act of Congress’ to issue ‘all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.’” United States v. Denedo , 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009) ( quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). “The District Court had jurisdiction over the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in aid of its jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s legal co nclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Mendoza v. United States , 690 F.3d 157, 159 (3d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

2 

### In its decision, the District Court emphasized that coram nobis is a rare remedy only available in limited sit uations, and is not coterminous with relief available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We agree that obtaining coram nobis relief is a more

- daunting task than succeeding under § 2255. See, e.g.
, Mendoza , 690 F.3d at 159 . However, in light of3



### relies is no longer valid; as the Supreme Court recently held, Padilla v. Kentucky , 130 S.
Ct. 1473 (2010), announced a “new rule
, ” and “ defendants whose convictions became
final prior to Padilla therefore cannot benefit from its holding .” Chaidez v. United States
, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013) . Thus, regardless of whether he was fully apprised by
counsel of the immigration consequences of his plea, Skeffery has no colorable claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because no substantial questi on is presented by this appeal, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d
Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Skeffery’s waiver an d the invalidity of his claim , we do not reach the issue of the scope of co ram nobis.