Summary
This Eleventh Circuit opinion addresses whether a federal prisoner currently in custody may petition for a writ of error coram nobis to challenge a restitution order. The court holds that while 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cannot be used to contest restitution, the categorical rule barring in-custody prisoners from coram nobis relief applies only to challenges seeking release from custody. Consequently, the writ remains available to address non-custodial aspects of a sentence, such as restitution, provided the high substantive standards for the extraordinary remedy are met. The case is remanded for the district court to evaluate the merits of the petitioner's claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a federal prisoner who remains in custody may seek a writ of error coram nobis to challenge a non‑custodial aspect of his sentence, such as a restitution order.
Holdings
- A prisoner in custody may seek coram nobis relief to challenge a non‑custodial aspect of his sentence, such as restitution, because the writ is not categorically barred by custody when §2255 is unavailable.
Key quotations
“We conclude only that there is no out‑of‑custody requirement for prisoners challenging a non‑custodial aspect of their sentence through the writ of error coram nobis.” (13)
Factual background
While serving as payroll director for Promise Healthcare, Ramdeo created a fictitious tax‑service company, PayServ, and diverted more than $20 million of payroll taxes to start a charter airline. He was arrested, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering, and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment with a restitution order of $21,442,173.
Procedural history
Ramdeo was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment plus restitution of $21,442,173. He unsuccessfully challenged the conviction and restitution on direct appeal. He later sought relief via a writ of audita querela, which was rejected, and via a §2255 petition, also rejected. He then filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging the restitution order while still in custody. The district court denied the petition, stating prisoners in custody are ineligible for coram nobis relief. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.