1 13-1882-cv Hanna v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is govern ed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appe ndix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary ord er must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19 th day of March, two thousand fourteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge , ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judge , JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. 

____________________________________________________________ HANNA Z. HANNA,
Petitioner

- Appellant , - v. - No. 13-1882 UNITED STATES, Respondent-Appellee.

____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner-Appellant: S TEPHEN N EAL P REZIOSI , Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi PC, New York, N.Y. For Respondent-Appellee: A NTHONY M. C APOZZOLO (Peter A. Norling, on the brief ), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for th e Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y. Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of New York (Block, J. ).

 The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States Dist rict Judge for the Sout hern District of New York, sitting by designation.2 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED

. Petitioner-appellant Hanna Z. Hanna appeal s from a judgment entered on April 12, 2013, by the United States District Court for th e Eastern District of New York (Block, J .), granting summary judgment to respondent-appellee the Unite d States (hereinafter “the government”). At issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing Hanna’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis (“ coram nobis petition”), in which he sought to vacate his 1997 misdemeanor conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1306(c) by filing an applicat ion for registration of an alien that contained statements Hanna knew to be false. This convi ction was obtained after a guilty plea that Hanna now argues was unconstitutional because his defens e counsel: (1) failed to advise Hanna of a defense to the charges (specificall y, lack of venue in the Eastern District of New York since the fraudulent applications were signed and filed in Philadelphia); (2) err oneously advised Hanna that he would not be prevented from practicing law because of his misdemeanor conviction; and (3) erroneously told Hanna that he would receiv e a term of probation of no more than two to three months. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this case, and the issues presented for review. A writ of error coram nobis is “essentially a remedy of last resort for petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to a criminal conviction and therefor e cannot pursue direct review or collateral relief by means of a writ of habeas corpus.” Fleming v. United States , 146 F.3d 88, 89-90 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). “ Coram nobis is not a substitute for appeal, and relief under the writ is strictly limited to those cases in wh ich errors of the most fundamental character have rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Foont v. United States , 93 F.3d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and elli psis omitted) (italics added). To obtain coram nobis relief, a petitioner “must demonstrate that ‘1) th ere are circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice, 2) sound reasons exist for failure to seek approp riate earlier relief, and 3) the3 petitioner continues to suffer legal consequences from his conviction that may be remedied by granting of the writ.’” Fleming , 146 F.3d at 90 (quoting Foont , 93 F.3d at 79). The district court denied Hanna’s coram nobis petition under the first requirement described in Fleming . Specifically, it found th at his venue-based claim failed because the venue challenge was meritless and therefore his prior counsel was not ineffective for declining to advise Hanna of this possible defense. It f ound that the remaining claims failed because his allegations were beli ed by the plea colloquy. We affirm the dismissal of the venue-based claim for the reasons stated by the district court. As for the remaining claims, we are not convinced that the transcripts from the pl ea and sentencing hearings beli e Hanna’s allegations about the advice provided by his defense attorney. 1 However, we affirm the judgment of the district court on an alternate ground. On a motion for a writ of error coram nobis , the petitioner bears the burden of showing that “sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief.” Fleming , 146 F.3d at 90. In this case, Hanna has not addr essed that requirement in any m eaningful way and therefore has not sustained his burden. Accordingly, we a ffirm the judgment on th is alternate ground. We have considered Hanna’s remaining argumen ts and find that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

1 The transcript from the plea and sentenci ng proceedings confirm that Hanna knew that disciplinary proceedings were likely to be initiate d. Hanna appeared to expect that disciplinary proceedings would be commenced; his ineffectiv e assistance claim, however, is based on his allegation that his defense attorney told him th at any disciplinary charge s would be dismissed. Therefore, his allegation is not in consistent with the statements ma de in the plea colloquy and at the sentencing hearing.