UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-30665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
ALAN MAISS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(94-CR-391-ALL)
July 22, 2002
Before DAVIS, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alan Maiss appeals the district court’s denial of his petition
for a writ of coram nobis. Maiss argues the bill of information
and factual basis pursuant to which he was charged and convicted
were insufficient, and that he is entitled to coram nobis relief
based on the flawed nature of these documents. Specifically, Maiss
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
contends his conviction must be vacated because the district court
was without jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction and the
information failed to charge an offense punishable by law. Maiss
further argues the district court erred in denying his petition
based on the doctrine of laches.
First, we recognize that the information on which Maiss was
convicted was defective in that it did not sufficiently allege an
overt act of concealment on the part of Maiss. However, Maiss’
argument concerning the district court’s lack of jurisdiction
fails. Recently, in United States v. Cotton, the Supreme Court
held that an indictment’s failure to allege an essential element of
an offense did not constitute a jurisdictional defect. 122 S. Ct.
1781, 1785 (2002).
Second, Maiss has not shown that his delay in bringing his
petition was excusable, nor has he overcome the Government’s
assertions of prejudice caused by this delay. See United States v.
Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 427-29 (5th Cir. 1998). Maiss’ contention that
the district court erred in denying his petition based on the
doctrine of laches also fails. Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
2