United States of America v. SURJIT SINGH, AKA Sonny

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SURJIT SINGH, AKA Sonny,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-16492
D.C. Nos. 3:19-cv-00591-LRH
3:13-cr-00118-LRH-
WGC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: OWENS, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Surjit Singh appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his petition for
a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758,
760 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
A petitioner is entitled to coram nobis relief if he establishes that: “(1) a
more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the
conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to
satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the error is of a
fundamental character.” Id. Although the district court denied Singh’s motion on
the grounds that Singh failed to show valid reasons for his delay and failed to show
fundamental error, we affirm on a different ground supported by the record. See
id.
A petitioner may only file a writ of coram nobis if he is no longer in
custody; if he is in custody, he has a remedy available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002). Supervised release
constitutes “custody” for purposes of § 2255, and a petitioner serving a supervised
release term is ineligible for coram nobis relief. Matus-Leva, 287 F.3d at 761.
Singh was no longer in prison when he filed his petition in January 2020, but the
record reflects that he remained on supervised release until October 2020. Singh
therefore was in custody and had an available remedy. It does not matter that
Singh’s one-year filing deadline had passed. Id. (“A petitioner may not resort
to coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping
requirements.”). Singh was therefore ineligible for coram nobis relief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --