[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11561

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 9:17-cv-81045-DMM; 9:07-cr-80125-DMM-1

NASSER GHELICHKHANI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 30, 2018)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-11561 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Nasser Ghelichkhani, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his petition 

for a writ of coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) as untimely. He argues that 

his petition was timely because severe stress prevented him from filing his petition 

within seven years of his release from federal custody. He also asserts that some 

of the facts stated in his petition were previously unknown to him and that he 

feared that his case would be remanded for further criminal proceedings. We 

affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ghelichkhani’s petition for a writ of coram 

nobis. 

I.

We review a district court’s denial of coram nobis relief for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709, 711 (11th Cir. 2002).

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides a federal court with 

authority to issue a writ of error coram nobis, which allows a petitioner to vacate a 

conviction after he has served his entire sentence. United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 

1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000); Peter, 310 F.3d at 712. Coram nobis relief is 

available after the sentence has been served because “the results of the conviction 

may persist. Subsequent convictions may carry heavier penalties, civil rights may 

be affected.” United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512–13 (1954). The coram 

nobis writ is an extraordinary remedy that is only available where (1) no other 

avenue of relief is or was available, and (2) the petitioner presents a fundamental 

Case: 18-11561 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

error that made his criminal proceedings irregular and invalid. Id.; Alikhani v. 

United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). In addition, the petitioner must 

present “sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier.” Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ghelichkhani’s 

petition for a writ of coram nobis as untimely. Ghelichkhani failed to provide any 

sound reasons as to why he waited over seven years after he was released from 

federal custody to file his petition. Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204; Peter, 310 F.3d at 711. 

Ghelichkhani’s claim that he was unable to file his petition sooner because he was 

unable to think about his criminal proceedings without suffering severe stress is 

belied by his prior litigation history. Ghelichkhani is a prolific pro se filer. His

litigation history reveals that he has filed multiple pro se collateral attacks on his 

conviction and sentences, including a premature motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255, a petition for habeas corpus, and numerous motions requesting sentence 

reductions, immediate release, or the disqualification or recusal of the district court 

judge.

Ghelichkhani’s claim that some of the facts relied upon in his petition were 

previously unknown to him earlier is similarly unconvincing. He fails to state 

what facts were unknown to him or why they were not previously discoverable. 

Without presenting sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier, Ghelichkhani is 

not entitled to relief by writ of coram nobis. See Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512–13. 

Case: 18-11561 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Moreover, Ghelichkhani fails to show that no other avenue for relief is or 

was available to him, or that there was a fundamental error that made his criminal 

proceedings irregular or invalid. Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734. Accordingly, the 

district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11561 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 4 of 4