[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 09 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 11 -cv -2 07 73 -UU, 1: 01 -cr- 00 36 0- UU-1 ROLANDO VAL DES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 18 , 20 13 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t Ro la nd o Val de s ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s co un se le d m ot io n fo r a wri t o f erro r co ra m no bis , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1. On

Case: 12-12096 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 1 of 4ap pe al , Vald es arg ue s tha t the writwas n eces sa ry to rem edy

a vi ol at io n o f th e ru le in Padil la v. Ken tu cky , 55 9 U.S. _ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 47 3, 1 76 L. Ed. 2d28 4 (2 01 0) , th atco un se l i s i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to advi se a cl ie ntof t he imm ig rat io n co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lty . He als o a ss ert s tha t, h adhi s co un se l i nf orm ed hi m of t he imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of h is pl ea, h e wou ldno t h av e p le d g ui lt y an d wo ul d h av e p ro ceed edto tri al . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a wri t o f erro r co ra m no bis forab us e o f di sc ret io n,

“ ke ep in g i n m in d t ha t an erro r of law i s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n p er s e.” Uni te d St at es v. Pete r , 31 0 F .3d70 9, 7 11 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . The Al l Writ s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1( a), g iv es fed eral co urts th e au th or ity to is su e wri ts of e rro r co ra m no bis . Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ll s , 22 1 F .3d 12 01 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The wri t s erv es as arem edy av ai labl e to va cat e a co nv ic ti on when th e m ov an t h as serve d h is sen te nc e an d i s n o l on ge r in cu st od y , un li ke po st -co nv ic ti onrel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Pete r , 31 0 F .3dat 7 12 . Co ra m no bis is “ anex tra or di na ry rem edy of l as t re so rt a va il ab le on ly in co m pe ll in g c irc um st an ces wher e n eces sa ry to ach ie ve jus ti ce.” Mil ls , 22 1 F .3dat 12 03 . A m ov an t es tabl is he s an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m when he sh ows th at(1) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t 2 Case: 12-12096 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 2 of 4pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedhi m . Se e Str ic klan d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7, 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 8 0 L. Ed. 6 74 (19 84 ). Preju di ce re qu ire s the de fen da ntto sh ow tha t “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b eendi ffer en t.” Id. at69 4, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 06 8. Th e Co urt d efi ne d “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty” as a “pr ob ab il it y su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e th e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e.” Id. The Supr em e Co urt in Padil la he ldth at , to pro vi de effe ct iv e as si st an ce, a cr im in al de fen se att orne y m us t ad vi se hi s cl ie ntth atth e p en di ng cri min al ch arg es ag ai ns t h im m ay carry a ris k o f adve rs e co ll at eral imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces . 55 9 U.S. at, 13 0 S . Ct. at 14 83 . Here, as su m in g wi th ou t d eci di ng th at Padil la ap pl ie s re tro act iv el y , we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t Val de s h as no t s ho wn tha t an y pre jud ic e res ul te d fro m hi s co un se l’s fa il ur e to advi se hi m of the im m ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of h is gu il ty ple a. The d is tri ctco urt atth e p le a h eari ng , andth e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ) pr ep aredforsen te nc in g, i nf orm edVald es of t he imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of h is pl ea, y ethe pe rs is te d i n p le ad in g g ui lt y . Thes e ci rcu m st an ces thus be li e th e st at em en t i n h is affi davi t tha t h e wou ldha ve pr oc eed edto tri al ha d h is att orne y advi se d h im

of t he co ns eque nc es of h is pl ea. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g Val de s’s m ot io n

3 Case: 12-12096 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 3 of 4fo r a wri t o f erro r co ra m no bis .

AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-12096 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 4 of 4