Court Opinion

ID: 9388192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 21:01:14.202075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.778277
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140      Doc: 17         Filed: 04/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6140

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff – Appellee,

                     v.

        MARCO BIRD,

                            Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:86−cr−00314−CMH−2)

        Submitted: January 13, 2023                                       Decided: April 18, 2023

        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Jacqueline R.
        Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140         Doc: 17      Filed: 04/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Marco Bird appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of coram

        nobis. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Bird sought vacatur of his 1987 conviction for possession with

        intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argued that his trial

        counsel mistakenly and unreasonably believed he was a United States citizen and

        misadvised him as to the immigration consequences of his plea bargain. And this mistake,

        he argues, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel—a fundamental error warranting

        coram nobis relief.

               A petitioner seeking a writ of coram nobis must establish that (1) a more usual

        remedy, such as habeas corpus, is unavailable, (2) he has a valid basis for not attacking his

        conviction earlier, (3) the consequences of his conviction satisfy Article III’s case-or-

        controversy requirement, and (4) the error that is the basis for relief is “of the most

        fundamental character.” Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 576 (4th Cir. 2013)

        (quoting United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012)). The district court

        determined that Bird failed to satisfy requirements (2) and (4)—namely, he did not show

        that he had a valid basis for not attacking his conviction earlier, nor did he establish a

        fundamental error in his conviction.

               In assessing a district court’s order denying a petition for writ of coram nobis, we

        review factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the court’s ultimate

        decision to deny the writ for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196

        (4th Cir. 2022).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140      Doc: 17        Filed: 04/18/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

              We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in

        denying relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3