SAMMY SUNGBUM CHANG, aka SUNG BUM CHANG, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 3: 17-CV-98-L (BH)No. 3: 05-CR-0127-L
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
January 13, 2017
SAMMY SUNGBUM CHANG, aka SUNG BUM CHANG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 3: 17-CV-98-L (BH)No. 3: 05-CR-0127-L
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
January 13, 2017
Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Special Order 3-251 this habeas case has been automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis received January 9, 2017 (doc. 2). Based on the relevant findings and applicable law, the petition should be DENIED with prejudice.
Sammy Sungbum Chang, aka Sung Bum Chang (Petitioner) challenges his federal conviction and sentence in Cause No. 3: 05-CR-127-L. The respondent is the United States of America (Government).
A. Procedural History
On September 21, 2005, Petitioner was charged by a superseding indictment with conspiracy to provide or obtain forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; providing and obtaining and attempting to provide or obtain forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1594(a); conspiracy to conceal, harbor and shield illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I); and harboring illegal aliens for commercial advantage and private financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B). (See No. 3: 05-CR-127-L, doc. 12. ) On June 12, 2006, he pled guilty to conspiracy to provide or obtain forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1589, and
Page 2
to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1594(a). (See id docs. 71, 79. ) After a sentencing hearing on October 18, 2006, he was sentenced to a total of 120 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. (Id doc. 84, 92. )
The judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal. (Id doc. 98); United States v. Chang No. 06-11229 (5th Cir Aug. 7, 2007). On November 4, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (See No. 3: 08-CV-1963-L, doc. 1. ) His § 2255 motion was denied on April 27, 2010, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed. (Id docs. 52, 62); United States v. Chang No. 10-10627 (5th Cir Dec. 21, 2010).
B. Continued Detention
Petitioner claims that he was transferred from prison to a halfway house in January 2014. (Doc. 2 at 3. ) After a detainer was filed against him based on a civil de-naturalization complaint in United States v. Chang No. 3: 14-CV-1173-N (N.D. Tex. ), he was returned to prison March 27, 2014. On February 25, 2015, his naturalization was revoked. (See No. 3: 14-CV-1173-N, doc. 24. )
Petitioner was released from prison to supervised release on August 15, 2015. (Doc. 2 at 5); see also www. bop. gov (inmate locator - search for Petitioner) (showing he was released on August 14, 2015). He was immediately taken into custody by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detained in the Rolling Plains Detention Center in Haskell, Texas, where he has since remained. (Doc. 2 at 5. ) While the direct appeal of the judgment revoking his naturalization was pending, on November 9, 2015, the Government obtained a removal order to deport Petitioner to South Korea. (Doc. 2 at 4-5, 15-16. ) The judgment was subsequently affirmed on appeal, and the mandate was issued on Apr. 29, 2016. (Id doc. 54, 55); United States v. Chang
Page 3
No. 15-10282 (5th Cir Feb. 4, 2016).
C. Substantive Claims
In his petition for writ of coram nobis, Petitioner raises the following grounds:
(Doc. 2 at 6-10. )
An individual may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in the court in which he was convicted. See United States v. Morgan 346 U.S. 502 504 (1954); United States v. Dyer 136 F. 3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort for persons who are no longer in custody pursuant to a criminal conviction and hence unable to pursue direct review or seek collateral relief by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. United States v. Hatten 167 F. 3d 884, 887 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1999). "The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy to correct errors of the most fundamental character. " United States v. Esogbue 357 F. 3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Page 4
"A writ of coram nobis will issue only when no other remedy is available and when sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief. " Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). "Where a petitioner is still in federal custody, relief from a prior invalid conviction must be sought by means of § 2255; for coram nobis survives only to the extent that it has not been replaced by statute and, therefore, is open to a prisoner only when his statutory remedies are unavailable or inadequate. " Correa-Negron v. United States 473 F.2d 684 685 (5th Cir. 1973).
A. In Custody
Petitioner's three-year term of supervised release, which began in August 2015, has continued while he has been in ICE custody. See United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez 640 F. 3d 129, 132-34 (5th Cir. 2011) (defendant, who was released from prison on supervised release and was then detained by ICE, remained on supervised release while in ICE custody). It will not expire until August 2018. A person on supervised release is in custody for purposes of § 2255 and may challenge the criminal conviction and sentence through a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Scruggs 691 F. 3d 660, 662 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2012). Because Petitioner is still in federal custody, he must seek relief from his conviction under § 2255, so this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant coram nobis relief. United States v. Uridales Garcia 442 F. App'x 935 (5th Cir. 2011).
B. Not in Custody
Even if Petitioner is no longer in custody for purposes of § 2255, he has not presented a sound reason for his failure to seek § 2255 relief while he was in custody. He admits that in March 2014, he was returned to prison from a halfway house because of a detainer and a civil de-
Page 5
naturalization complaint filed against him. His naturalization was revoked in February 2015. Before he was released from prison in August 2015, he was aware that he was no longer a United States citizen and that the Government was seeking his deportation. He could have sought permission from the Fifth Circuit to raise his claims in a successive § 2255 motion at that time. He has not shown why he failed, and has continued to fail, to do so. Esogbue 357 F. 3d at 535. "An assertion that he would have been unable to satisfy the stringent standards for filing a successive § 2255 motion while he was in custody is not such a 'sound reason. '" Id. To the extent Petitioner is not in custody on his federal sentence, he has not shown he is entitled to coram nobis relief.
The petition for writ of error coram nobis should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent Petitioner is no longer in custody, the petition should be DENIED.
SO RECOMMENDED on this 13th day of January 2017.
/s/_________ IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 6
A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Ci v. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Automobile Ass'n 79 F. 3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
/s/_________ IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
--------
Footnotes:
Petitioner is currently challenging his continued ICE detention in a pending habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 2 at 5); Chang v. Lynch No. 1: 16-CV-45-O (N.D. Tex. ). As in his third claim in this case, his § 2241 petition asserts that his continued ICE detention violates his due process rights. His claims regarding his ICE detention in this case do not challenge his federal conviction and sentence and are properly raised in his § 2241 petition. See Hook v. Lynch 639 F. App'x 229 (5th Cir. 2016).
Section 1651(a) provides that "the Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. "
If his petition for writ of error coram nobis is liberally construed as a § 2255 motion, it would be successive because Petitioner has previously filed a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (made applicable to motions to vacate by § 2255). Because Petitioner has not shown that the Fifth Circuit has authorized a successive § 2255 motion, his current petition is not construed as a motion under § 2255.
--------
--------
Footnotes:
Petitioner is currently challenging his continued ICE detention in a pending habeas corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 2 at 5); Chang v. Lynch No. 1: 16-CV-45-O (N.D. Tex. ). As in his third claim in this case, his § 2241 petition asserts that his continued ICE detention violates his due process rights. His claims regarding his ICE detention in this case do not challenge his federal conviction and sentence and are properly raised in his § 2241 petition. See Hook v. Lynch 639 F. App'x 229 (5th Cir. 2016).
Section 1651(a) provides that "the Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. "
If his petition for writ of error coram nobis is liberally construed as a § 2255 motion, it would be successive because Petitioner has previously filed a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (made applicable to motions to vacate by § 2255). Because Petitioner has not shown that the Fifth Circuit has authorized a successive § 2255 motion, his current petition is not construed as a motion under § 2255.
--------
Negative TreatmentPlease, select a date range
