Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Osaruyi Eduwen

March 25, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
OSARUYI EDUWEN, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court are two motions by defendant Osaruyi Eduwen. On February 1, 2011, defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the judgment entered on August 31, 2010. On March 2, 2011, defendant filed what he titled a "Motion for Grant of Writ of Error Coram Nobis Petition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)." Although defendant's motions technically are two different filings, they present the same two arguments that defendant wants to use to set aside his guilty plea and sentence. The two arguments are that the defendant's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, in part because he did not know that his guilty plea could serve as the basis for immigration removal proceedings; and that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because he asked his counsel to file a notice of appeal, and counsel never did so. In an Order dated February 3, 2011 (Dkt. No. 17), the Court held that under Rule 4(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, defendant could not receive an extension longer than 30 days from entry of judgment. Noting, however, that defendant's allegations about the request to file a notice of appeal implicated Campusano v. U.S., 442 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 2006), the Court directed the Government to respond to defendant's allegations. The Government filed its response on March 9, 2011. As the Court requested, the Government's response included an affidavit from defendant's counsel, Robert N. Convissar. The Court has deemed the motions submitted on papers. For the reasons below, the Court denies both motions.

II. BACKGROUND

This case concerned allegations that defendant tried to enter Canada using someone else's United States passport. Defendant is a native of Nigeria who entered the United States on a B-1 non-immigrant visa in 1997. Defendant received non-immigrant employment visas in 2001 and 2002, and unsuccessfully applied for immigrant status in 2005. Other than the visas that he received in 1997, 2001, and 2002, defendant never has had legal status in the United States. On March 7, 2010, defendant arrived at the Peace Bridge port of entry in Buffalo, New York and crossed it to enter Canada. Defendant attempted to enter Canada using what appeared to be a United States passport issued in the name of Vincent Minott. Canadian officials refused to admit him and sent him back across the Peace Bridge. When defendant reached the primary inspection booths on the United States side of the Peace Bridge, Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP") agents refused defendant re-entry and instead referred him to secondary inspection for further questioning. Upon further questioning, defendant admitted that his passport belonged to someone else and that he was trying to enter Canada not to visit relatives, as he had claimed, but to seek asylum. CBP agents then arrested defendant and detained him. In a criminal complaint filed on March 8, 2010, defendant was charged with knowingly and willfully making a false statement and possessing a United States passport issued for the use of another person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 911, 1001, and 1544.

On April 14, 2010, defendant entered a plea agreement by which he would plead guilty to the information. Paragraph 11 set forth that defendant's criminal history category was I and his offense level was 10, giving him an advisory sentencing range of 6--12 months. Paragraph 15 addressed potential immigration consequences of defendant's guilty plea and read as follows:

The defendant acknowledges that the defendant is not a citizen of the United States and that the defendant is on notice that the defendant's ability to enter, remain and/or reside in the United States is subject to the laws, regulations and associated policies of the Department of Homeland Security. The defendant understands that any effect that the defendant's conviction in this action will have upon the defendant's immigration status will be determined by the Department of Homeland Security in a separate proceeding. The defendant has had an opportunity to fully determine what the consequences of the defendant's conviction may be on the defendant's immigration status. (Dkt. No. 7 ¶ 15.) In paragraph 20, defendant agreed to waive any right to appeal a sentence that fell within the advisory range. The last page of the plea agreement read as follows, above defendant's signature:

I have read this agreement, which consists of 10 pages. I have had a full opportunity to discuss this agreement with my attorney, Brian Comerford, Assistant Federal Public Defender. I agree that it represents the total agreement reached between myself and the government. No promises or representations have been made to me other than what is contained in this agreement. I understand all of the consequences of my plea of guilty. I fully agree with the contents of this agreement. I am signing this agreement voluntarily and of my own free will. (Id. at 10.)

During the plea proceeding, defendant's former counsel, Brian Comerford, explained to the Court that he reviewed the waiver of indictment and the entire plea agreement with defendant and that defendant understood his rights. The Court explained to defendant that he had the right to require the Government to present the charges against him to a grand jury and, if indicted, to require the Government to prove its case at trial. Defendant indicated that he understood his right to grand jury presentation and trial and that no one was forcing him to give up those rights. Defendant indicated further that he understood all of the terms of the plea agreement and that he had no questions about them. The Court consequently accepted the plea of guilty and scheduled sentencing.

On July 9, 2010, the Court held a status conference concerning a letter that defendant sent directly to the Court complaining about attorney Comerford and requesting both a new attorney and a withdrawal of his guilty plea. The Court relieved attorney Comerford and appointed attorney Robert N. Convissar. The Court held another status conference on July 29, 2010, at which defendant, through new counsel, withdrew his request to withdraw his plea and reported that he offered an apology to attorney Comerford for his prior complaints.

On August 10, 2010, the Court sentenced defendant. At sentencing, defendant again acknowledged the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea as follows:

THE COURT: People start playing around with passports it just-it involves security of the United States.

MR. CONVISSAR: And it's punishable by the numbers and the ranges that you're talking about. He's not denying that, Judge. But in 2001, 2005 and-2002 and 2005 he had made efforts through immigration and naturalization to upgrade ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.