[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-12412 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 23. 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 9:93-cr-08061-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL MIRANDA-ALFARO,
a.k.a. Raul Alfaro Miranda,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 23, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Raul Miranda-Alfaro, a Cuban national, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for a writ of error coram nobis to set aside his 1993
guilty pleas and convictions for cocaine trafficking. In 1994, the district court
sentenced Miranda-Alfaro to 24 months’ imprisonment, below the 10-year
statutory minimum, based on a motion from the government for his substantial
assistance in other prosecutions. The district court denied his instant motion
because, among other reasons, he could not satisfy the prejudice prong of an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
On appeal, Miranda-Alfaro raises several arguments. He argues that Padilla
v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), announced a
new rule of law that applies retroactively. He also argues that his motion was
timely because he moved for relief within one-year of the Padilla decision. As to
the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he argues that
the district court should either have presumed prejudice, or found that he showed
actual prejudice because he swore in an affidavit that, had he known of the adverse
immigration consequences of his guilty plea, he would not have pleaded guilty.
We review the denial of a writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709, 711 (11th Cir. 2002). We review a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d
1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We review the district court’s findings of
2
fact for clear error. Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2000).
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), gives federal courts the authority to
issue writs of error coram nobis. United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203
(11th Cir. 2000). A movant establishes an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
when he shows that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient
performance prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686,
104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). We need not address both
components of the inquiry where the movant makes an insufficient showing on
one. Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d at 1248.
Only three ineffective assistance of counsel circumstances merit a
presumption of prejudice, of which a failure to advise about the immigration
consequences of a guilty plea is not one. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S.
648, 659-60, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2047, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984). In order to show
prejudice when counsel did not advise the movant of the possible immigration
effects of a guilty plea, the movant must show that a decision to reject a plea
bargain would have been rational under the circumstances. See Padilla, 559 U.S.
at , 130 S. Ct. at 1485.
Here, the record demonstrates that Miranda-Alfaro cannot satisfy the
prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the district
3
court did not err when it declined to presume prejudice, and it did not clearly err
when determined that his affidavit was unreliable considering the exceptional
benefit he received from pleading guilty. The plea bargain lowered his sentence of
imprisonment by eight years. Miranda-Alfaro cannot show that a rational person
would have rejected his plea bargain. Thus, he cannot show prejudice. We need
not consider his other arguments because, regardless of the retroactive
applicability of Padilla or the timeliness of his motion, he cannot succeed on his
underlying ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the district court
appropriately denied Miranda-Alfaro’s coram nobis petition, and we affirm its
order.
AFFIRMED.
4