UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

HAROLD VINCENT ROBINSON, 

Defendant – Appellant. 

No. 14-4105 

(D.C. No. 2:01-CR-00267-DAK-1) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

 Harold Robinson appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis. 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 

* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination 

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. 

R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 5, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
-2- 

I 

 Robinson pled guilty to possession of a short-barreled shotgun in 2001. In his plea 

agreement, Robinson waived his right to file a motion to suppress regarding the search 

that uncovered the gun at issue. He is no longer in federal custody or under court 

supervision. On April 22, 2014, he filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, alleging that 

his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Robinson contended 

that his counsel was ineffective because she did not adequately investigate the facts 

surrounding the search prior to advising Robinson to waive his right to suppress. The 

district court denied his petition. Robinson timely appeals.

II 

Federal courts may “entertain coram nobis applications in ‘extraordinary cases 

presenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice.’” Rawlins v. Kansas, 714 

F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 912-13 

(2009)). The Supreme Court has stated that “it is difficult to conceive of a situation in a 

federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be necessary or 

appropriate.” Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (quotations and 

alteration omitted). In seeking this writ, “the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate 

that the asserted error is jurisdictional or constitutional and results in a complete 

miscarriage of justice.” Klein v. United States, 880 F.2d 250, 253 (10th Cir. 1989). We 
-3- 

review a district court’s denial of a writ of coram nobis for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Thody, 460 F. App’x 776, 778 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing United 

States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 2000)). 

 The exercise of due diligence in seeking a writ of coram nobis is “a prerequisite to 

relief.” Klein, 880 F.2d at 254. On appeal, Robinson contends that any failure to pursue 

the writ or other remedies is excusable because he did not learn of his counsel’s alleged 

ineffective assistance until he consulted a different attorney about his case in March 

2014. But Robinson admits that, even at the time of his plea deal, he was aware of a 

possible legal issue regarding the search. Despite this awareness, he agreed to the plea 

deal and failed to pursue any post-conviction relief for over a decade. Robinson thus did 

not exercise due diligence. See id. (determining that a seven-year delay in seeking a writ 

of coram nobis was a failure of due diligence). Although we recognize the burdensome 

collateral consequences of Robinson’s conviction, belated recognition of these 

consequences cannot excuse his delay in challenging the conviction itself. See Maghe v. 

United States, 710 F.2d 503, 503-04 (9th Cir. 1983). 

 Because Robinson failed to exercise due diligence, which is a procedural 

prerequisite for seeking the writ of coram nobis, we do not reach the substance of his 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In light of Robinson’s failure to pursue other 

remedies or forms of relief within a reasonable time, we cannot say that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying the petition. 
-4- 

III 

 The district court order is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge