Oreste Llanes v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-13338
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:11-cv-00682-SDM-TBM,
8:93-cr-00245-RAL-1
ORESTE LLANES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 29, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-13338 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Oreste Llanes, a Cuban citizen facing deportation, appeals the district court’s
denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis. According to his petition, Llanes
pleaded guilty in 1993 to federal drug charges and served an 84-month sentence.
After his release, Llanes was informed that he would be deported. In 2011, Llanes
petitioned for a writ of coram nobis,1 challenging his 1993 conviction on the
grounds that counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of his
guilty plea. His argument was based upon Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356
(2010), which held that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel to inform
noncitizen criminal defendants that pleading guilty may result in deportation.
As Llanes concedes, Padilla was decided after his conviction became final
and thus could only serve as a basis for his petition if it is retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review.2 When Llanes filed his petition and briefed this
appeal, the retroactivity of Padilla was an unsettled question. See Chaidez v.
United States, — U.S. — , 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1107 n.2 (2013) (collecting cases). But
in February, the Supreme Court resolved the conflict and held that Padilla does not
apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Id. at 1113 (“[D]efendants whose
1 We assume, without deciding, that an ineffective-assistance claim is cognizable in a coram nobis petition. See
Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. — , 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1106 n.1 (2013) (assuming “without deciding” that “nothing
in this case turns on the difference between a coram nobis petition and a habeas petition”).
2 Llanes’s apparent contention (confusingly argued under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Witt v. State, 387
So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980), which is flatly inapplicable to Llanes’s federal conviction) that Padilla applies retroactively
even as a “new rule” under the exception for “watershed” rules of criminal procedure, see Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S.
288, 311-12 (1989), is squarely foreclosed by this court’s precedent. Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States, 678 F.3d
1203, 1209 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Padilla did not announce a watershed rule of criminal procedure.”).
Case: 11-13338 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
convictions became final prior to Padilla . . . cannot benefit from its holding.”).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Llanes’s petition.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 11-13338 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --