Alikhani v. U.S., No. 98-5546
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and KRAVITCH; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 200 F.3d 732 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2000) Hossein ALIKHANI, a.k.a. Hossein Alikani, a.k.a. J.A. Faram, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 98-5546 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 2000 |
Page 732
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Eleventh Circuit.
Page 733
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.(No. 92-8108-CR-UUB), Ursula Ungaro-Benages, Judge.
Before COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Hossein Alikhani appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.
Background
Following an unsuccessful attempt to procure certain oil-production equipment in the United States for sale to Libya, Alikhani (a Cypriot) was charged with a criminal violation of executive orders and regulations, promulgated under 50 U.S.C. 1701 and 1702, forbidding all exports to and certain transactions with Libya. Alikhani challenged the indictment by a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Crim. P 12(b)(2). That challenge included the arguments that the Libyan embargo regulations do not reach non-"U.S. persons," a term that is defined in Executive Order No. 12543, the primary basis of most of the regulations, and that even if the executive order
Page 734
intended to prohibit conduct by non-U.S. persons, such a prohibition would exceed the president's statutory authority.
The court never ruled on the motion, however, because Alikhani withdrew it after entering a plea agreement. Under that agreement, Alikhani pleaded guilty to the charge of violating the executive orders. Later finding inconvenient a provision in the plea-agreement that prohibited him from filing suits concerning his arrest, Alikhani has sought by this coram nobis petition to have his guilty plea invalidated and the plea agreement thereby voided. The district court denied the petition after concluding that Alikhani had not presented any cognizable ground for relief. This court has historically in unpublished opinions reviewed a denial of coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion, see Warton v. United States, 971 F.2d 756 (11th Cir.1992), and following the practice in other circuits we deem that to be the proper standard of review-keeping in mind that an error of law is an abuse of discretion per se. See Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88, 90 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir.1996).
Discussion
The bar for coram nobis relief is high. First, the writ is appropriate only when there is and was no other available avenue of relief. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512, 74 S.Ct. 247, 253, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Moody v. United States, 874 F.2d 1575, 1578 (11th Cir.1989). Second, the writ may issue "only when the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid." Moody, 874 F.2d at 1576-77.
In a brief that reads like one on direct appeal from a criminal conviction, Alikhani asserts six challenges to his conviction. Five of the six are facially not cognizable on coram nobis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siers-Hill v. United States, CRIMINAL NO. 2:18cr62
...to hear a given type of case," and "Congress [has] bestow[ed] that authority on lower courts by statute." Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000) ; Courtade v. United States, No. 2:15CR29, 2017 WL 6397105, at *13 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2017). For federal crimes, Congress d......
-
U.S. v. Hartwell, No. 04-6214.
...Horse, 316 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.2003); United States v. Jacquez-Beltran, 326 F.3d 661, 662 (5th Cir.2003); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734-35 (11th While the language in Smith on which Hartwell relies — that the defendant's waivers "did not confer power on the convicting cour......
-
United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chemical Co., No. 01-1693.
...v. Prentiss, 256 F.3d 971, 982 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Beck, 250 F.3d 1163, 1165 (8th Cir.2001); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734-35 (11th Cir.2000). While the statute at issue in Martin was a criminal law, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), I agree with the First Circuit that there ......
-
United States v. Bates, No. 18-12533
...and, thereby, invokes the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction." Brown , 752 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Alikhani v. United States , 200 F.3d 732, 734–35 (11th Cir. 2000) ). However, a guilty plea does not waive all challenges to the plea itself, 960 F.3d 1296 and a defendant can still at......
-
Siers-Hill v. United States, CRIMINAL NO. 2:18cr62
...to hear a given type of case," and "Congress [has] bestow[ed] that authority on lower courts by statute." Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000) ; Courtade v. United States, No. 2:15CR29, 2017 WL 6397105, at *13 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2017). For federal crimes, Congress d......
-
U.S. v. Hartwell, No. 04-6214.
...Horse, 316 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.2003); United States v. Jacquez-Beltran, 326 F.3d 661, 662 (5th Cir.2003); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734-35 (11th While the language in Smith on which Hartwell relies — that the defendant's waivers "did not confer power on the convicting cour......
-
United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chemical Co., No. 01-1693.
...v. Prentiss, 256 F.3d 971, 982 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Beck, 250 F.3d 1163, 1165 (8th Cir.2001); Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734-35 (11th Cir.2000). While the statute at issue in Martin was a criminal law, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), I agree with the First Circuit that there ......
-
United States v. Bates, No. 18-12533
...and, thereby, invokes the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction." Brown , 752 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Alikhani v. United States , 200 F.3d 732, 734–35 (11th Cir. 2000) ). However, a guilty plea does not waive all challenges to the plea itself, 960 F.3d 1296 and a defendant can still at......