Palermo v. United States, 091019 FED3, 18-3744

Docket Nº:18-3744
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:MICHAEL PALERMO, Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Judge Panel:Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Case Date:September 10, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MICHAEL PALERMO, Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 18-3744

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

September 10, 2019

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 16, 2019

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-05404) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM

Michael Palermo appeals pro se from the District Court's order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm that order.

I.

In 2010, Palermo pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of mail fraud. At the guilty-plea hearing, Palermo admitted to the factual allegations undergirding that count. Before sentencing, he submitted a "Statement of Offense Conduct/Acceptance of Responsibility" to the District Court, again admitting his guilt. And at the sentencing hearing, he stated that he "deeply regret[ted] [his] actions in this matter." (N.T. in Dist. Ct. Case No. 2:10-cr-00482-001, Feb. 9, 2011, at 5.) The District Court sentenced Palermo to three years of probation and ordered him to pay $10, 000 in restitution, a $2000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. He did not appeal from that judgment; nor did he collaterally attack it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In April 2018, several years after Palermo completed his sentence, he filed a pro se coram nobis petition in the District Court, seeking to vacate his guilty plea and conviction. Palermo alleged that he had recently learned that the FBI's "Supervisory Special Agent in charge of the Public Corruption squad" and the agents who were involved in his (Palermo's) case had been investigated for falsifying and/or modifying FD-302 forms. (Coram Nobis Pet. 2.)1 Although Palermo did not submit any evidence with his petition (let alone evidence specifically showing that one or more FD-302 forms in his case had been falsified or modified), he nevertheless claimed that "his plea of guilty was induced by...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP