Beltran v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 11, 1998
• Docket: CV-98-082-M
• Status: Published

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. § 2255 had 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.