Court Opinion

ID: 9905805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:02:54.500314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:53.605173
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11429    Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 11/30/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11429
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MARIA ALEXANDRA ROGACHEVA,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket Nos. 6:21-cv-00102-PGB-LHP,
                           6:17-cr-00205-PGB-LHP-6
USCA11 Case: 22-11429      Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 11/30/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11429

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               In January 2021, Maria Rogacheva, through counsel, peti-
       tioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a writ of error coram
       nobis, challenging her 2018 marriage fraud conviction. She argued
       that her defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing
       to inform her of her defenses, rendering her guilty plea involun-
       tary. Rogacheva conceded that her petition failed to meet the one-
       year § 2255 deadline, but because she only recently discovered that
       she had a legal avenue to challenge her conviction, she requested
       that the court withdraw her guilty plea.
               The district court denied Rogacheva’s petition because she
       failed to show sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier or ex-
       plain why she was unable to discover her right to challenge her
       conviction within one year from the date judgment was entered.
       Rogacheva now appeals, pro se, the district court’s denial for relief.
       As a procedural matter, the government argues that the district
       court lacked jurisdiction to consider her petition because she could
       have, yet failed to, raise her ineffective assistance of counsel and
       involuntary plea claims in a timely proceeding. This decision ad-
       dresses the jurisdictional question and merits of the dismissal in
       turn. After careful review, we affirm.
                                         I.
USCA11 Case: 22-11429      Document: 36-1       Date Filed: 11/30/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-11429                Opinion of the Court                          3

              On appeal, the government argues that, because Rogacheva
       could have raised her ineffective assistance of counsel and involun-
       tary plea claims in a timely § 2255 proceeding, the district court
       lacked jurisdiction to grant coram nobis relief. We review de novo
       the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court. United States v.
       Benjamin, 958 F.3d 1124, 1133 (11th Cir. 2020).
               The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provides that
       “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress
       may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respec-
       tive jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). A writ of error coram nobis
       is “an extraordinary remedy of last resort available only in compel-
       ling circumstances where necessary to achieve justice.” United
       States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000). This circuit has
       “assumed but not decided that ineffective assistance of counsel
       may constitute an error so ‘fundamental’ as to warrant coram nobis
       relief.” Gonzalez v. United States, 981 F.3d 845, 851 (11th Cir. 2020).
              Rogacheva was no longer in custody when she pursued
       post-conviction relief, therefore no relief outside of coram nobis re-
       lief was available to challenge her conviction, rendering it the ap-
       propriate “remedy of last resort.” Mills, 221 F.3d at 1203. Accord-
       ingly, the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether
       Rogacheva qualified for coram nobis relief.
                                         II.
               This court reviews the district court’s denial of coram nobis
       relief for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bane, 948 F.3d 1290,
       1294 (11th Cir. 2020). A district court’s determination of whether a
USCA11 Case: 22-11429       Document: 36-1       Date Filed: 11/30/2023      Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                    22-11429

       petitioner has presented sound reasons for failing to seek relief ear-
       lier is reviewed for clear error. Gonzalez, 981 F.3d at 850–51. A dis-
       trict court does not commit clear error when it rejects a petitioner’s
       assertion that they were unaware of coram nobis relief, as “‘proce-
       dural ignorance’” is not “‘an excuse for prolonged inattention’”
       when the law calls for diligence. Id. at 853 (quoting Johnson v. United
       States, 544 U.S. 295, 311 (2005)).
               To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner
       must show that her attorney’s performance was deficient, and that
       the deficient performance prejudiced her defense. Strickland v.
       Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). When the claim is a chal-
       lenge to a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance, “the defendant
       must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for coun-
       sel’s errors, [s]he would not have ple[d] guilty and would have in-
       sisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58–59 (1985).
               The district court did not err in denying coram nobis relief
       because Rogacheva did not show sound reasons for failing to seek
       relief earlier, nor did she show that her counsel was ineffective, re-
       sulting in an involuntary plea. First, the district court considered
       whether Rogacheva presented sound reasons for failing to seek re-
       lief earlier, finding that she did not satisfy this prerequisite for coram
       nobis relief. Gonzalez, 981 F.3d at 850–51. The court noted her al-
       most three-year delay in challenging her conviction, and found her
       statement that she only recently discovered a legal avenue to chal-
       lenge her conviction insufficient to justify this extraordinary rem-
       edy. Because “procedural ignorance” is not “an excuse for
USCA11 Case: 22-11429        Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 11/30/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       22-11429                  Opinion of the Court                       5

       prolonged inattention,” the district court correctly concluded that
       Rogacheva was precluded from coram nobis relief. Id. at 853.
               Second, the district court considered whether Rogacheva
       had established prejudice to support her claims for ineffective assis-
       tance and a resulting involuntary plea, finding that she had not.
       The district court noted that the evidence on the record made it
       highly unlikely that the marriage fraud case would have proceeded
       to trial, even if Rogacheva was aware of the defenses she claims her
       counsel failed to communicate. Moreover, at her plea hearing,
       Rogacheva admitted to the truth of the plea agreement’s facts and
       contended that she was pleading guilty because she was guilty.
       Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to
       conclude that her lack of knowledge of available defenses did not
       amount to prejudice that would have led to trial had she known of
       them before pleading guilty. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88; Hill, 474
       U.S. at 58–59.
                 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s well-reasoned de-
       cision.
                 AFFIRMED.