Langston v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1:08CR3-MPM-DAS,1:08CR3-MPM-DAS
• Parties: JOSEPH C. LANGSTON MOVANT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

JOSEPH C. LANGSTON MOVANT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

No. 1:08CR3-MPM-DAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

February 29, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on the application of Joseph C. Langston for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States by influencing a government official under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 666. The government has responded to the motion, Langston has replied, and the matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence will be denied.

Facts and Procedural Posture

Joseph C. "Joey" Langston entered a plea of guilty before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on January 7, 2008. In the plea, Langston admitted that, from "on or about January of 2006 and continuing until on or about March of 2007" he and his co-conspirators had corruptly offered a thing of value (recommendation for appointment as Federal District Judge) to Circuit Judge Robert "Bobby" Delaughter in an attempt to influence him as an agent of state or local government. The court entered judgment on December 16, 2008, and sentenced Langston to three years in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons. He did not appeal, and the deadline to do so expired on December 26, 2008, 10 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).¹

During Langston's incarceration, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5^th Cir. 2009), holding that even if the state court judges who were bribed in that case were agents of the Administrative Office of Courts ("AO"), their corrupt judicial decisions were not made in connection with the business of the AO. For that reason the $10,000 federal funds received by the AO did not provide the statutory jurisdictional basis for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 666. The Fifth Circuit rendered the Whitfield decision on December 11, 2009. Langston did not request that the court vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the deadline to do so expired on December 26, 2009, one year after the deadline to appeal his conviction. United States v. Wynn, 292 F.3d 226 (5^th Cir. 2002). Langston was released from incarceration and placed on supervised release on April 18, 2011. Using March 31, 2007, as the latest date that the judicial bribery of Judge Delaughter occurred (as set forth in the Information), the 5-year limitations period applicable to that crime expired on March 31, 2012. Langston's period of supervised release ended April 17, 2014, and he filed the instant petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis on April 15, 2015. The government responded to the motion on June 26, 2015, and Langston replied on July 13, 2015.

Coram Nobis Relief²

The term coram nobis, a vehicle to mount a post-conviction collateral challenge to a judgment, is of Latin origin, and literally means "in our presence" or "before us." Black's Law Dictionary, 304-305 (5^th ed. 1979). The "us" in the translation refers to the court which rendered thechallenged judgment. Id. The purpose of the writ is to present to the court - and obtain relief from:

errors of fact, such as a valid defense existing in the facts of [the] case, but which, without negligence on [the] defendant's part, was not made, either through duress or fraud or excusable mistake, where [the] facts did not appear on [the] face of [the] record, and were such as, if known in season, would have prevented rendition of the judgment.

Id. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes federal coram nobis relief, an extraordinary postconviction remedy for those convicted in a federal district court or a federal military tribunal. Federal Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook § 2:20 (Donald E. Wilkes, Jr.) Coram nobis applies only to federal convictions - and may not be used to challenge convictions in state court. United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263 (4^th Cir. 2008); Ogunwomoju v. United States, 512 F.3d 69 (2^d Cir. 2008) (a federal district court has no jurisdiction to issue writs of error coram nobis to set aside a state court judgment). A defendant seeking coram nobis must do so by filing the petition in the convicting court as part of the original criminal proceeding.³

The federal coram nobis remedy "is of the same general character as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255" with substantially the same grounds for relief - the ground for relief must involve fundamental error, whether jurisdictional, constitutional, or otherwise. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247 (1954). A coram nobis proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 is not a civil action; it is, instead, a post-sentencing phase of the original criminal prosecution giving rise to the challenged conviction. United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2221, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1235 (2009); United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506 n.4, 74 S. Ct. 247, 98 L. Ed. 248 (1954). The convicted defendant need not be in custody when seeking federal coram nobis relief. Barreto-Barreto v. United States, 551 F.3d 95 (1^st Cir. 2008). In fact, as coram nobis relief is barred when another remedy is available, a defendant in custody through a federal conviction must proceed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, rather than28 U.S.C.A. § 1651. Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767 (5^th Cir. 1996), United States v. Marcello, 876 F.2d 1147 (5^th Cir. 1989). For this reason, defendants convicted in federal district court seeking relief under § 1651 are almost exclusively those who received a sentence not involving incarceration - or who have been sentenced to a term in prison but have completed it. Thus, coram nobis relief is substantially equivalent to that under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but without a custody requirement. Federal Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook § 2:20 (Donald E. Wilkes, Jr.)

However, unlike a Section 2255 proceeding, in a federal coram nobis proceeding, the person receiving relief must not only show that the conviction or sentence is invalid, he must also prove he is suffering adverse collateral consequences resulting from the conviction. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S. Ct. 247, 98 L. Ed. 248 (1954). Examples of adverse collateral consequences include: receiving recidivist punishment arising out of a subsequent conviction, threat of deportation, or suffering a loss of civil rights. Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook, supra. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does away with the writ of error coram nobis only with respect to attacks on federal civil judgments; it does not affect the availability of coram nobis to attack federal criminal judgments. Id.

Only two U.S. Supreme Court decisions involve federal coram nobis post-conviction relief: United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S. Ct. 247, 98 L. Ed. 248 (1954), and United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1235 (2009). Thus, the lower federal courts have been left to define the contours of coram nobis relief. The various federal courts of appeals have rendered conflicting opinions as to the requirements for obtaining coram nobis relief; as such, its methods of application vary among the circuits. Postconviction Remedies and Relief Handbook, supra. However, the remedy is generally available to a defendant if: (1) the ground for relief involves fundamental error; (2) no other judicial remedy, such as relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is currently available; (3) the defendant can show valid reasons for failing to seek relief earlier; and (4) as a result of the conviction,the convicted person is suffering or threatened with adverse collateral consequences. Id. The requirement regarding adverse collateral consequences when seeking coram nobis relief cannot be satisfied merely because the defendant, as a result of the conviction, (1) suffers damage to his reputation, (2) experiences difficulty acquiring or keeping a job, (3) suffers monetary loss, or (4) suffers spiritually. Id. Those convicted of misdemeanors may also seek coram nobis relief. United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417 (9^th Cir. 1989); Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9^th Cir. 1987).

Should the defendant prevail in a coram nobis proceeding, the court usually provides relief in the form of the vacatur and setting aside of the invalid conviction. Allen v. United States, 867 F.2d 969 (6^th Cir. 1989). Courts have also provided relief by requiring reimbursement of restitution paid by the defendant. United States v. Mischler, 787 F.2d 240 (7^th Cir. 1986). The court may also order repayment of a fine exacted as a result of the invalidated conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067 (4^th Cir. 1988). The defendant may appeal an adverse ruling on a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, as may the government. Howard v. United States, 962 F.2d 651 (7^th Cir. 1992) (defendant may appeal), Nicks v. United States, 955 F.2d 161 (2^d Cir. 1992) (government may appeal).

Even if a defendant meets the criteria for coram nobis relief, that remedy may be precluded by the ancient equitable doctrine of laches. Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 231 (6^th Cir. 1996). If a defendant unduly delays the challenge to his conviction, then he waives the opportunity to do so:

We believe that the doctrine of laches should apply to coram nobis proceedings because otherwise, there would be essentially no time limits for bringing coram nobis claims. Moreover, sound policy dictates that coram nobis claims be brought as early as possible to prevent the suffering imposed by illegal convictions and to prevent the government from being prejudiced in its efforts to re-prosecute meritorious cases.

Blanton, p. 231.⁴ In Blanton, the Sixth Circuit held that a three-year delay in seeking coram nobis relief was not "unduly long" because it was "a reasonable amount of...