Summary
affirming denial of writ of coram nobis because Chaidez applies to collateral attacks on federal convictions
Summary of this case from Oropeza v. United StatesOpinion
No. 11-35435 D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00059-JCC
04-09-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VY THI THACH, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submission Deferred May 9, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Submitted April 5, 2013
Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Vy Thi Thach appeals the denial of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Thach's petition rises or falls on whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), applies retroactively. It is therefore foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013), which held that "under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect."
That the Supreme Court applied Teague in evaluating Chaidez's challenge to her federal conviction reinforces our authority holding that Teague's framework applies to collateral attacks on federal convictions. See United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 667 (9th Cir. 2002) (Teague applies to federal prisoners).
The Supreme Court declined to consider Chaidez's arguments that Teague's bar on retroactivity should not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least should not apply when there is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1113 n.16.
--------
AFFIRMED.