Coram Nobis Diligence as a Threshold Bar, and § 1252’s Exclusive-Review Deadline for Stipulated Judicial Removal Orders (United States v. Nta)

I. Introduction

In United States v. Nta (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026) (per curiam, unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of coram nobis and expungement relief sought by Peter Nta, a Nigerian citizen and lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty in 2017 to possessing fraudulent immigration documents under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

After his guilty plea and sentence (time served plus one year of supervised release), Nta signed a plea statement stipulating to a judicial order of removal, and the district court entered the order. Nta was removed in August 2017. In 2024—years after completing supervision—Nta filed a pro se petition seeking vacatur and “equitable expungement,” asserting constitutional and structural defects in his conviction, sentence, and removal order.

The appeal presented three recurring post-conviction questions:

  • How should courts construe pro se filings that are labeled as “expungement” but substantively attack a conviction?
  • What role does delay/diligence play in limiting the extraordinary remedy of coram nobis?
  • Can a defendant collaterally attack a stipulated judicial removal order years later, outside the statutory review scheme?

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did have jurisdiction to consider the petition as a coram nobis request (despite the “expungement” label), because Nta’s substance was a collateral attack seeking vacatur for constitutional defects. However, the court affirmed denial on alternative grounds:

  1. Lack of diligence: Nta’s roughly six-year delay after completion of supervision was unjustified, so coram nobis relief was properly denied.
  2. Expungement unavailable without vacatur: because the conviction was not overturned, expungement of conviction records could not proceed.
  3. Removal challenge time-barred: any challenge to the stipulated judicial removal order had to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1252, including the 30-day petition-for-review deadline, which Nta missed by years.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Coram nobis availability and standards

  • United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 1998): The opinion relies on Dyer for two core propositions: (i) coram nobis exists in federal court via the All Writs Act; and (ii) reasonable diligence is a prerequisite—delay can independently defeat relief. The Fifth Circuit uses Dyer as a benchmark for rejecting stale coram nobis petitions.
  • United States v. Lockhart, 165 F.4th 933 (5th Cir. 2026): Lockhart supplies the modern formulation of coram nobis in the Fifth Circuit: it is reserved for petitioners no longer in custody who seek to vacate a conviction, show continuing civil disabilities, and demonstrate an error of sufficient magnitude. Importantly, Lockhart is used here both for the coram nobis framework and as a direct comparator for a six-year unjustified delay—the same timeframe that proved fatal in Nta.
  • Chico v. United States, 703 F. App'x 292 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam): Cited to reinforce that even shorter delays (two years) can be fatal where the petitioner cannot justify the lack of prompt action.

2. Construing pleadings by substance, not label

  • Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824 (5th Cir. 2019): Supports the principle that courts construe pro se filings liberally, which matters because Nta’s petition was titled as “expungement” but contained substantive constitutional attacks and a request for vacatur.
  • Armstrong v. Capshaw, Goss & Bowers, LLP, 404 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Edwards v. City of Hou., 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc)): These cases provide the instruction to determine the true nature of a pleading by its substance rather than its caption. That doctrine is what allowed the Fifth Circuit to correct the district court’s framing and recognize that coram nobis jurisdiction existed.

3. Standards of review and jurisdiction

  • Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 130 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1997): Cited for reviewing jurisdictional issues de novo and for abuse-of-discretion review in expungement decisions. It underpins the panel’s willingness to re-examine the district court’s jurisdictional conclusion.
  • Light-Age, Inc. v. Ashcroft-Smith, 922 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2019): Supplies the “affirm on any ground” principle, which the court uses to uphold denial despite disagreeing with the district court’s jurisdictional rationale.

4. Expungement limits absent vacatur

  • United States v. Corkern, No. 24-60189, 2024 WL 5199332 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2024) (per curiam): Used to confirm that, without a statutory right to expungement, a defendant typically must point to a specific rights violation by executive actors holding records of an overturned conviction. Because Nta’s conviction stands, his expungement request fails.

5. Removal-order review channeling and timeliness

  • Thoung v. United States, 913 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 2019): Though out-of-circuit, it is invoked for the proposition that challenges to stipulated judicial removal orders must comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1252, including the 30-day deadline—supporting the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that Nta’s removal challenge is untimely.
  • Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1998): Cited for the appellate practice rule that the court generally will not consider arguments not urged by the parties on appeal. Here, it is used to explain why the panel did not affirm on waiver grounds even though Nta’s removal plea statement contained a waiver.

6. Constitutional/sentencing argument mentioned but not reached

  • Ex parte Lange: Nta invoked it for a claimed “binary sentencing violation.” The panel did not reach the merits, treating diligence as dispositive. The opinion’s practical lesson is procedural: even potentially weighty theories do not overcome an unjustified coram nobis delay.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Recharacterization: jurisdiction existed to consider coram nobis

The district court denied primarily on the view that it lacked jurisdiction to expunge records and suggested, alternatively, that Nta was properly convicted. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit applied liberal construction principles (Coleman v. United States) and the substance-over-label doctrine (Armstrong v. Capshaw, Goss & Bowers, LLP; Edwards v. City of Hou.) to conclude that Nta’s filing was not merely a request for equitable expungement—it also sought to vacate the conviction based on alleged constitutional defects.

That move matters because coram nobis is a recognized vehicle under the All Writs Act for petitioners no longer in custody, as explained in United States v. Dyer and restated in United States v. Lockhart. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction to consider the petition as coram nobis.

2. Disposition on alternative grounds: diligence is a gatekeeping requirement

After finding jurisdiction, the court affirmed anyway under the “affirm on any ground” rule (Light-Age, Inc. v. Ashcroft-Smith). The dispositive ground was lack of reasonable diligence. The court treated diligence not as a minor factor, but as a threshold equitable limitation on an extraordinary writ.

The timeline drove the outcome: Nta’s supervision likely ended around 2018, but he filed in November 2024 (about six years later), which the court found comparable to the unjustified six-year delay rejected in United States v. Lockhart, and consistent with United States v. Dyer (nearly ten years) and Chico v. United States (two years).

Nta’s attempted explanations—limited access during ICE detention and FOIA delays during COVID—were found insufficient because they did not account for the full period of inaction (removed in 2017; COVID begins 2020; petition filed 2024), nor did they specify what was sought, what was needed to file, or why earlier filing was impossible.

3. Expungement fails because the conviction remains valid

Having denied coram nobis (and thus leaving the conviction intact), the court held expungement could not follow. Relying on United States v. Corkern, the panel emphasized that absent statutory authority, expungement is not generally available simply to erase the collateral consequences of a valid conviction; and where expungement is sought, it commonly presupposes that the conviction has been overturned or that executive record-holders committed a specific rights violation.

4. Collateral challenge to stipulated judicial removal order is channeled to § 1252 and time-barred

The opinion also addresses Nta’s attempt to invalidate his removal order as ultra vires. The panel explained the statutory basis for judicial removal via stipulation: 8 U.S.C. § 1228(c)(5) authorizes the United States Attorney (with relevant concurrence) to enter a plea agreement calling for the alien to stipulate to a judicial removal order, and authorizes the district court to enter such an order.

The court further noted that Nta’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) triggers deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii), and that lawful permanent residents remain “aliens” for this purpose under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).

Most importantly, the panel treated any challenge to the removal order as governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which makes a petition for review in the court of appeals the “sole and exclusive” means for judicial review, and imposes a 30-day deadline (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)). Because the removal order was entered June 28, 2017, the challenge was years late. The court cited Thoung v. United States for the applicability of § 1252’s channeling and deadline to stipulated judicial removal orders.

Although the opinion notes that Nta likely waived challenges to removal in his plea statement, it does not rely on waiver because the Government did not press that argument on appeal, consistent with Crowe v. Smith.

C. Impact

  • Coram nobis petitions will live or die on diligence: Even where a petitioner alleges “structural” or constitutional defects, the Fifth Circuit’s approach underscores that an unexplained multi-year delay is a standalone basis for denial.
  • Courts should recharacterize pro se filings by substance: The decision reinforces that district courts should not deny for “lack of expungement jurisdiction” if the filing substantively seeks vacatur via coram nobis. This has practical consequences for correct framing, record development, and appellate review.
  • Expungement remains exceptional without statutory authorization: The opinion aligns with Fifth Circuit skepticism toward “equitable expungement” of valid conviction records, effectively tying expungement prospects to vacatur or a distinct rights violation involving record-holders.
  • Removal-order review is tightly channeled: The decision highlights that even stipulated judicial removal orders are not freely attackable via late collateral motions; they are subject to § 1252’s exclusive review path and strict filing deadline.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Writ of coram nobis: An extraordinary post-conviction remedy that lets someone who is no longer “in custody” ask a court to vacate a federal conviction. It is not a substitute for direct appeal; it is reserved for rare, fundamental errors and requires prompt pursuit.
  • Reasonable diligence: A requirement that the petitioner act promptly after learning of the basis for relief. Courts expect a concrete, credible explanation for any substantial delay.
  • Expungement: The erasure or sealing of records. In federal court, expungement typically requires statutory authorization or unusual circumstances; it is not automatically available merely because a conviction causes hardship.
  • Judicial order of removal (stipulated): A removal order entered by a federal district court as part of a criminal case when the defendant stipulates to removal. Challenges to such orders are generally governed by the immigration review statute (8 U.S.C. § 1252).
  • § 1252 “sole and exclusive means”: Congress’s channeling rule requiring that judicial review of removal orders proceed through a petition for review in a court of appeals, typically within 30 days—foreclosing many collateral routes.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Nta delivers a procedurally focused message: while courts must look past labels and recognize coram nobis requests hidden inside “expungement” pleadings, the remedy remains strictly limited by equitable gatekeeping—especially the requirement of reasonable diligence. The decision also underscores that challenges to stipulated judicial removal orders are channeled to § 1252 and must be brought quickly via a petition for review. In combination, these holdings reinforce finality in criminal judgments and removal orders while clarifying the correct procedural lens for district courts confronted with hybrid pro se collateral filings.