FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 16, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 50 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :8 9- cr-0 61 22 -UNA-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us MARIE LOUIS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mar ie Lou is , a fo rei gn na ti on al an d fo rm er fe de ral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he

di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f he r pe ti ti on fora writof e rro r co ra m no bis , fil edpu rs ua nt to th e All Writ s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1. Re lying on th e Supr em e Co urt’s t he nrece ntde ci si on in Pad il la v. Ken tu cky , 55 9 U.S. , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 47 3 (2 01 0) , Lou is so ug htto va cat e h er 1 99 0 fe de ral dru g- tra ffi ck in g c on vi ct io n b as edon he r tr ia l at to rn ey ’s all eg edfai lu re t o a dv is e h er o f th e d ep orta ti on co ns eque nc es of pl ead in g g ui lt y . After c on du ct in g ahe ari ng co nc ern in g Lo ui s’s p le a an d c ou ns el ’s co nduc t atth e ti m e, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Lo ui s fa il edto pre se ntso un d reas on s fo r no t s eek in g re li ef ea rli er, fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe r at to rn ey di d no t ad equa te ly adv is e h er o f th e imm ig rat io n c on se qu en ces of p le ad in g g ui lt y , and fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atsh e su ffer edan y pre jud ic e as a res ul t o f co un se l’s al le ge d erro r. Lou is no w app eal s, ar gu in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g h er co ra m no bis pe ti ti on be cau se Pad il la ap pl ie s re tro act iv el y to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w andhe r fo rm er at to rn ey fai le d t o a dv is e h er t ha t a g ui lt y pl ea wou ldau to m at ic al ly sub

ject h er t o d ep orta ti on . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f co ra m no bis rel ie f fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Pet er , 31 0 F .3d70 9, 7 11 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n i f itap pl ie s an in co rrec t l eg al st an da rd , fol lo ws i m pr op er p ro cedur es , 2orrel ie s o n fi nd in gs of f actth atare cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Uni te d Sta te s v. J orda n , 58 2 F .3d12 39 , 12 49 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Non ethe le ss , is su es th atare n otpl ai nl y an d pr om in en tl y

rai se d o n app eal are d eem edab an do ne d a ndwil l n otbe co ns id ered . Uni te d Sta te s v. J

er ig an , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Thi s i nc lu de s is su es th atare s im

pl y refe ren cedin pa ss in g wi th ou t s ub st an ti ve arg um en t as to th ei r m eri ts . Id. A writof e rro r co ra m no bis is “ an ex tra or di na ry rem edy of l as t re so rt av ai labl e o nl y

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.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Mi ll

s , 22 1 F .3d12 01 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The b ar fo r co ra m no bis rel ie f is hi gh , andth e wri t m ay is su e o nl y

wher e (1 ) “ th ere i s an d was no ot he r av ai labl e av en ue for rel ie f,” an d (2 ) “ th e err orin vo lv es a m at te r of factof t he m os t fu nd am en ta l ch arac te r whi ch ha s n otbe en pu t i n i ss ue or p as se d upo n a nd whi chren de rs th e p ro ceed in g i ts el f irreg ul ar an d i nv al id .” Ali kh an i v. Un it ed St at es , 20 0 F .3d73 2, 7 34 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Furth erm or e, a d is tri ctco urt m ay co ns id er a co ra m no bis pe ti ti on on ly whe re “ th e p et it io ne r pr es en ts so un d re as on s fo r fai li ng to see k re li ef ea rli er.” Mil ls , 22 1 F .3dat 1 20 4. A pet it io ne r as se rti ng a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l m us t s ho w bo th th at(1) co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d (2 ) th e d efi ci en t pe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedhe r de fen se . Stri ckl an d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7 3(1 98 4) . Befo re t he Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d i ts 20 10 de ci si onin Pad il la , m os t

co urts , in cl ud in g t hi s o ne , hel d t ha t co un se l was un de r no co ns ti tu ti on al ob li ga ti on to ad vi se a cl ie ntof t he po ss ib le de po rta ti on co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lt y . Se e, e.g . , Pad il la , 55 9 U.S. at, 13 0 S .Ct. at14 81 n.9 (co ll ect in g c as es ); se e a ls o Uni te d Sta te s v. C

amp be ll , 77 8 F .2d76 4, 7 68 -6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) . In Padil la , th e Supr em e Co urt re

jecte d thi s v ie w, ho ld in g t ha t an att orne y ren de rs de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce b y

fai li ng to advi se a no n- ci ti zen cli en t t ha t a g ui lt y pl ea “ carr ie s a ris k o f de po rta ti on .” 55 9 U.S. at, 13 0 S .Ct. at14 86 . The Supr em e Co urt d id no t, h owe ve r, al te r orad dr es s t he pre jud ic e req ui rem en t fo r ob ta in in g re li ef, wh ic h co nt in ue s t o d em an d ash owi ng th atth ere was a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b ut fo r co un se l’s erro rs , th e p et it io ne r wou ldno t h av e p le ad edgu il ty andwou ldha ve in si st edon go in g t o t ria l. Se e id. at, 13 0 S .Ct. at14 78 , 14 83 -8 4; Hil l v. Lo ckh ar t , 47 4 U.S. 5 2, 5 9 (1 98 5) . Ci rcu it s ar e sp li t as to whet he r Pad il la sh ou ldbe gi ve n re tro act iv e eff ectto co nv ic ti on s t ha t b ecame fin al pri orto it s i ss uanc e, pu rs uantto th e p rin ci pl es set fo rth in Teagu e v. La ne , 48 9 U.S. 2 88 (19 84 ). Se e, e.g . , Ch ai de z v. Un it ed

St at es , 65 5 F .3d68 4, 6 86 (7t h C ir. 2 01 1) ( Pad il la do es no t ap pl y

ret ro act iv el y

to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w); Uni te d Sta te s v. Or oc io , 64 5 F .3d63 0, 6 41 (3dCir . 20 11 ) (Padil la do es ap pl y

ret ro act iv el y ). Andalt ho ug h t hi s ci rcu itha s n otad dr es se d t he 4is su e, we ne edno t d o s o h ere.

Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt as su m edth at Pad il la was re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le bu t fo un d t ha t Lo ui s fa il edto sat is fy th e p reju di ce p ro ng of Stri ckl an d . Lou is fai ls to ch al le ng e th is fin di ng in he r br ie f an d t hu s h as ab an do ne d i t. 1 Acco rd in gl y , Lou is ha s n otsh own th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g h er p et it io n, an d we a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f he r pe ti ti on fora writof e rro r co ra m no bis . AFFIRMED.

She has also aba

ndoned any

challeng e to the district cour t’s alternate finding s, eac h of 1 which standingalone would be a suff icient basis to deny

relief . 5