Case Name: Jesus Natividad SANTOS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-15
Citations: 381 F. App'x 419
Docket Number: No. 07-40145
Parties: Jesus Natividad SANTOS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
Jesus Natividad SANTOS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-40145.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Ch'cuit.
June 15, 2010.
George W. Aristotelidis, Law Offices of Jorge Aristotelidis, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
In Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 336 (5th Cir.2008), vacated by — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2340, 176 L.Ed.2d 559 (2010), we held, inter alia, that the alleged failure of Jesus Natividad Santos-Sanchez's attorney to warn him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel warranting coram nobis relief. In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment mandates that "counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation." — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Subsequently, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in Santos-Sanchez and remanded the case to us for further consideration.
We find that Padilla has abrogated our holding in Santos-Sanchez. We therefore vacate the district court's denial of Santos-Sanchez's petition for a writ of coram no-bis and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Padilla.
VACATED and REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. We note that Santos-Sanchez's deportation neither deprives the district court of jurisdic- lion nor renders his petition moot. See Zalawadia v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir.2004) (holding, in the context of a writ of habeas corpus, that a bar on re-admission following removal or deportation is a legally cognizable collateral consequence, and thus deportation did not render the petition moot).