[DO NOT PUBLISH] 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-15785

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:90-cr-00059-HLA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CARLOS GARCIA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 30, 2013)

Before HULL, ANDERSON and FARRIS,* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

 

*

Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by 

designation.

Case: 11-15785 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Carlos Garcia, a citizen of Cuba, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his federal drug trafficking

convictions that were obtained through a guilty plea, and for which he had already 

served his sentence.

1 Garcia sought to vacate his convictions on grounds of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in 

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. Garcia alleged in his coram nobis petition that (1) 

his trial counsel failed to inform him that his guilty plea may result in deportation, 

and, (2) had counsel properly advised him, Garcia would not have pled guilty to 

the drug trafficking offenses.

The district court denied Garcia’s coram nobis petition, concluding that 

Padilla set forth a “new rule” that does 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 

 

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: 11-15785 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

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

1073-77 (11th Cir. 2004) (applying the Teague retroactivity doctrine). 

On appeal, Garcia argues that the district court erred in concluding that 

Padilla established a new rule for retroactivity purposes. Garcia also contends that 

his trial counsel’s deficient performance under Padilla resulted in prejudice. 

After Garcia filed his appellate brief, however, the Supreme Court decided

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

disposes of Garcia’s arguments. 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. 

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

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

Case: 11-15785 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

AFFIRMED. 2

 

2

This appeal was originally scheduled for oral argument, but under 11th Circuit Rule 34–

3(f), this Court hereby decides it on the briefs, without oral argument. The government’s 

unopposed motion to remove the appeal from the oral argument calendar is dismissed as moot.

Case: 11-15785 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 4 of 4