[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11490

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVE WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:96-cr-00318-TPB-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11490

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Steve Williams, a former federal prisoner represented by 

counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ 

of error coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The government, in turn, 

has moved for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule.

I. 

Williams was charged in 1996 with one count of knowingly 

and intentionally using a communication facility to facilitate a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). He later agreed, through counsel, to 

plead guilty pursuant to a written agreement. The district court 

sentenced Williams to 5 months’ imprisonment followed by 36 

months’ supervised release. The court entered a final judgment to 

this effect in 1997. Williams did not appeal or seek post-conviction 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He served his sentence and discharged his term of supervised release.

In March 2022, Williams, represented by new counsel, filed 

the present petition for a writ of error coram nobis, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1651(a), and challenged the validity of his 1997 conviction. 

Williams asserted that he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel did not advise him of a viable entrapment 

defense before he agreed to plead guilty. He asserted that his trial

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 7
22-11490 Opinion of the Court 3

counsel had been ineffective for not pursuing an entrapment defense because he had told counsel of the facts underlying the potential defense. And, he asserted, if he had not pleaded guilty, he 

would have been acquitted at trial. He further asserted that his trial

counsel failed to inform him that he would “automatically lose his 

constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms’” and “to participate in 

the political process by voting in elections” as a result of his plea. 

He reiterated that if he had been informed of these rights, he would 

not have pleaded guilty, and “the result would have been different.” 

In attempting to excuse his failure to file a motion for postconviction relief under Section 2255 and his 20-year delay in filing 

a petition for writ of coram nobis, Williams argued that he should 

have been appointed counsel to file such a post-conviction motion. 

Specifically, Williams argued that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 

(2012), provides an avenue for a federal court to “hear and rule 

upon the merit [of] substantial claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel, notwithstanding any Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act [(“AEDPA”)]; time limitations . . . or [s]tate [c]ourt 

procedural bars, where the [p]etitioner had no lawyer to do his first 

post-conviction relief motion, or if counsel in such capacity provided ineffective assistance.” 

The district court denied Williams’s petition. The court reasoned that a writ of error coram nobis was an “extraordinary” remedy of last resort which could only issue where there is and was no 

other available avenue of relief to correct a fundamental error that 

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11490

rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid. But here, the 

court explained, Williams could have pursued relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 and failed to do so. The court also noted that Williams failed to explain the more than twenty-five-year delay between pleading guilty in 1996 and filing the petition in 2022.1

On appeal, Williams argues that the district court improperly denied his petition for error coram nobis relief. Rather than 

filing a response, the government has moved for summary affirmance. It argues that the district court did not err in denying Williams’s petition because Williams could have raised his ineffective

assistance claim in a Section 2255 motion any time between his 

guilty plea and his release from custody. It also contends that Williams failed to establish any sound reason for his delay in seeking 

relief and that Williams never sought to obtain appointed post-conviction counsel in the district court. 

II. 

We review a district court’s denial of a petition for writ of 

error coram nobis for an abuse of discretion. Alikhani v. United 

States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). Summary disposition is 

1 Williams moved the district court to reconsider its ruling, without success. 

On appeal, he does not specifically challenge the denial of that motion. Accordingly, any issue in this respect is forfeited. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian 

Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680-81 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A party can abandon an issue 

on appeal by failing to ‘plainly and prominently’ address it in his opening 

brief.”).

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 7
22-11490 Opinion of the Court 5

appropriate, in part, where “the position of one of the parties is 

clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case . . . .” Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary affirmance shall postpone the due date for the filing of any 

remaining brief until we rule on such motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).

III. 

A writ of error coram nobis offers a remedy “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). 

The writ, however, may issue only when (1) “there is and was no 

other available avenue of relief,” and (2) “the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not been 

put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding itself 

irregular and invalid.” Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734 (emphasis added). 

Moreover, a district court may consider a coram nobis petition 

only where the petitioner presents sound reasons for failing to seek 

relief earlier. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).

We cannot say the district court abused its discretion in 

denying the petition for a writ of coram nobis. Williams does not 

challenge the district court’s conclusion that he could have raised 

his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance by filing a Section 2255 petition while he was still in custody. And Williams did not explain 

when he became aware of his counsel’s ineffectiveness or whether 

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11490

such a discovery justified the delay in petitioning for a writ of coram nobis. Accordingly, even if his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance could rise to the level of an error of “the most fundamental 

character,” Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734, the district court did not err 

in denying his petition as untimely.

Williams cites Martinez to excuse his failure to raise his trial 

counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness earlier. In Martinez, the Supreme 

Court held that a procedural default in state-court post-conviction 

litigation will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial constitutional claim if the claim was not raised in the state

post-conviction proceeding only because the petitioner had no 

counsel or the petitioner’s counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. Martinez, 566 U.S. at 13-14.

Martinez has no application here. The exception in Martinez

is not about timeliness. See Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 613

(11th Cir. 2014). And it has never been applied to justify the granting of a writ of coram nobis. Moreover, the Martinez exception applies only when the denial of post-conviction counsel or the ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel prevented a petitioner from 

raising a meritorious claim. Martinez, 566 U.S. at 13-14. But Williams did not have post-conviction counsel, attempt to obtain postconviction counsel, or otherwise try to litigate a post-conviction 

petition. He has made no effort to establish that his lack of postconviction counsel prevented him from raising his claim until more 

than 20 years after his conviction and sentence.

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 6 of 7
22-11490 Opinion of the Court 7

IV. 

We GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance. We DENY its motion to stay the briefing schedule as moot 

in light of Eleventh Circuit Rule 31-1(c).

USCA11 Case: 22-11490 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 7 of 7