2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-6-2013

USA v. Robert Skeffery

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2489

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Robert Skeffery" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 420.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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GLD-352 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. SKEFFERY,

 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 2006 
2

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 nobis, arguing that this 

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

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. He alleges 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,2and 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 Skeffery 

 

1

“In federal courts the authority to grant 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 conclusions 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 situations, 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 of 
3

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 question 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 and the invalidity of his claim, we do not reach the issue of the scope 

of coram nobis.