Whether summary disposition is appropriate when considering a petition for writ of coram nobis

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. A petition for the ancient writ of Coram nobis calls for an adjudication of the facts as well as the law. The District court dismissed the action as untimely without considering the factual questions. The Court of Appeals likewise denied the appeal without any of the exploration of the facts as would have been seen in a normal plenary action when the government moved for summary disposition. In this case, the pivotal issue is a letter the plaintiff sent to the trial judge which he says contains information that will prove he was promised transactional immunity. In the normal course of events, that letter would have had to have been produced. It was avoided because the court granted a motion summary disposition. Is summary disposition appropriate when considering this or any other Coram nobis petition? 2. The Court of Appeals said the petitioners Coram nobis petition came too late. But this court has never established a bright line “statute of limitations” for such a petition, and in the leading case, the petitioner waited seven years before filing his case. Under the circumstances presented, was seven years after completing his sentence too long? 3. The general description of frivolous in Federal law is a position which cannot be supported by fact, existing law or extension of existing law. But the Court of Appeals said that because of the five-year delay the case was frivolous. Did the petitioner’s reliance on the five years which passed in the controlling law make his claim “frivolous”? Po. ii PERSONS AFFECTED BY THIS PETITION 1. Deyer, Dionja L., Federal Public defender 2. Flanagan, Dyril L., Esq 3. Merryday, Hon. Steven D., U.S. District Judge 4. Porceilim Hon. Anthony E, U.S. Magistrate Judge ((solely in his capacity as a former Assistant U.S. Attorney) . 5. Bjon Brunvand, petitioner’s trial attorney s JURISDICTION The District court had jurisdiction because this was a criminal. prosecution under 18 USC § 1959. The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1291 (a) because it was an appeal of a final order from the District court. This court has jurisdiction under 28 USC § 2101 (b). Review is sought from the Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Case 19-1026 denying a motion for reconsideration dated September 18, 2019