Beltran v. United States
Beltran v. United States
Opinion
Beltran v. United States CV-98-082-M 03/11/98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Maria Beltran, Petitioner
v. Civil No. 98-82-M
United States of America, Respondent
O R D E R
Although styled as a motion for relief in the nature of a
writ of error coram nobis, rather than as a motion to vacate, set
aside or correct the judgment and sentence imposed in her case
under
28 U.S.C. § 2255,1 petitioner's motion is without merit in
any form.
Arguing that her guilty plea should be set aside because she
was not advised, as part of her plea colloguy, that she might
later face the collateral conseguence of deportation based on a
felony narcotics conviction, and thus her plea was improvident,
petitioner ignores on-point precedent in this circuit. See e.g.
United States v. Quinn,
836 F.2d 654, 655(1st Cir. 1987)
(deportation risk in the context of guilty plea is generally
regarded as a collateral conseguence only, that is, legally
irrelevant); Nunez Cordero v. United States,
533 F.2d 723(1st
Cir. 1976) (no duty to inguire or inform as to deportation
1 Defendant was convicted on April 8, 1991; a timely motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255had to be filed on or before April 24, 1997. Her motion was filed on February 17, 1998. consequences under Fed. R. Grim. P. 11(c) before accepting guilty
plea).
In addition, the motion is fatally deficient in that not
only is the proffered reason for withdrawal without merit, but
petitioner's motion is filed nearly seven years after her
conviction, she makes no assertion of legal innocence, and she
has made no showing that her plea was anything other than
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See e.g. United States v.
Isorm,
85 F.3d 831, 838(1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Velez
Carrero,
954 F. Supp. 20(D. Puerto Rico 1997) .
The motion and the files and records of the case
conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief. To
the extent petitioner makes a case for equitable and humanitarian
relief based on her good conduct since conviction, those points
should be made in the context of the administrative proceedings
before the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
March 11, 1998
cc: James C. Dragon, Esq. Paul M. Gagnon, Esq.
2
Reference
- Status
- Published