U.S. v. Hassebrock

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s petition for writ of coram nobis, where defendant, five years after completion of his sentence on tax evasion charges, alleged in his petition that his trial counsel was ineffective, that Dist. Ct. committed various trial errors, and that Congress lacked authority to impose criminal penalties for violations of Tax Code. Ct. of Appeals found that Rule 58, which deems judgment as being entered 150 days after dispositive order was entered on civil docket if Dist. Ct. previously neglected to enter separate order, applied to coram nobis determinations so as to render defendant’s appeal timely. However, defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief, where: (1) all but one of his arguments made in his coram nobis petition could have been raised in his prior, unsuccessful section 2255 petition; and (2) although defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel petition was raised and rejected in his prior section 2255 petition, he could not raise same issue in instant coram nobis petition.