United States of America v. Kazeem Ishola, a/k/a JOHN ALEXANDER, a/k/a ROBERT HUTTON, a/k/a DANIEL LAROCHE…

BLD-340 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-2365
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KAZEEM ISHOLA,
a/k/a
JOHN ALEXANDER,
a/k/a
ROBERT HUTTON,
a/k/a
DANIEL LAROCHE
Kazeem Ishola,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-CR-00102)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 9, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: September 12, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Kazeem Ishola appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. As the
appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the order of the District
Court.
Following a guilty plea, Ishola was convicted of conspiracy to commit
identification fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7), (b)(2)(B) and (f) in January
2004. He did not file a direct appeal or a motion to vacate or set aside his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In April 2007, Ishola filed a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis. The District Court construed the petition as raising three claims: (1) the
Government violated the plea agreement by not resolving who opened and obtained
money from certain bank accounts; (2) Ishola’s counsel, the prosecutor, and the Court
overlooked the substantial assistance he provided in identifying the leader of the
conspiracy; and (3) a possible argument that Ishola’s substantial assistance warranted a
reduction of sentence.
The District Court properly found that Ishola could seek relief using coram nobis,
as he had served his sentence for the conviction, but was continuing to suffer continuing
consequences. However, we agree with the District Court that because Ishola could have
pursued his claims on direct appeal or in a motion filed pursuant to § 2255, he failed to
show sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier. Thus, Ishola did not meet the
requirements for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 106

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1062 (3d Cir. 1988).
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District
Court.

-- 3 of 3 --