Whether a defendant's reliance on erroneous advice from counsel, the Court of Appeals and novelty of a legal interpretation constitutes 'valid reasons' for not attacking the conviction earlier under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether a defendant’s reliance on erroneous advice from counsel, the Court of Appeals and novelty of a legal interpretation constitutes “valid reasons” for not attacking the conviction earlier under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).. 2. Is there an error committed by the Fourth Circuit in failing to conduct a Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) analysis of Mr. Littlejohn’s ineffective ; assistance of counsel which often conflation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process with Sixth Amendment rights when analyzing assistance of counsel in deciding whether he failed establish a valid reason for the delay in filing a coram nobis petition and failure to address the novelty of the question as a basis for the delay? 3. Whether a petitioner who is "in custody" can utilize a coram nobis to challenge non-custodial aspects of a criminal judgment. 2