Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms Strict “Sound Reasons” Requirement for Coram Nobis and Confirms Rule 11 Errors Are Non‑Jurisdictional

Introduction

In W. Lawrence LeNeve v. United States, No. 25-11992 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025) (per curiam) (non-argument calendar) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis arising from a 2006 guilty plea to bankruptcy fraud. The petitioner asserted that the absence of a verbatim transcript of his Rule 11 plea colloquy created a jurisdictional defect warranting vacatur, and he sought to excuse a lengthy delay in filing based on late discovery of the missing transcript and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The case centers on two intertwined issues: (1) the demanding preconditions for coram nobis relief—especially the obligation to demonstrate “sound reasons” for not seeking earlier relief when other avenues were available—and (2) whether alleged Rule 11 violations, including the purported absence of a plea colloquy transcript, are jurisdictional or constitutional defects. The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, while unpublished, offers a clear reaffirmation of controlling principles in this niche of post-conviction practice.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary denial of coram nobis relief. The court held:

The petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of coram nobis because he could have raised his claims earlier via direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Coram nobis is not available when earlier avenues “were” available.
He did not carry his burden to show “sound reasons” for the delay. The record showed he knew of the alleged “missing transcript” as early as 2010, yet he waited until 2025 to seek coram nobis. Ignorance of the law and generalized assertions about counsel’s advice do not excuse prolonged delay.
Even on the merits, Rule 11 errors are neither constitutional nor jurisdictional under United States v. Timmreck, and thus do not render a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.

Applying abuse-of-discretion review to the denial of the writ and clear-error review to the “sound reasons” finding, the court affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a): Provides the authority for federal courts to issue coram nobis writs where necessary to achieve justice when the petitioner is no longer “in custody.” The opinion anchors coram nobis in this statute.
United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2000): Characterizes coram nobis as an “extraordinary remedy of last resort,” setting the high threshold that frames the court’s analysis. The opinion relies on Mills to emphasize the exceptional nature of the writ.
United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002): Confirms coram nobis is available to those no longer in custody and establishes that denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The panel uses Peter both for availability and the standard of review.
Gonzalez v. United States, 981 F.3d 845 (11th Cir. 2020): Supplies the “sound reasons” requirement and clarifies that procedural ignorance does not excuse prolonged inattention when diligence is required; also sets clear-error review for the “sound reasons” determination. The court quotes and applies this diligence principle directly.
Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2000): Articulates two strict coram nobis conditions: (1) no other avenue “is and was” available, and (2) the error is a fundamental factual defect rendering the proceeding irregular and invalid. The panel applies the first condition to conclude the writ is unavailable because direct appeal and § 2255 were previously open to the petitioner.
United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015): Clarifies that an appeal waiver does not bar a challenge to the validity of the plea itself (such as a Rule 11 claim). The court references this to show the petitioner could have raised a Rule 11 challenge on direct appeal despite his plea agreement’s waivers.
Rivers v. United States, 416 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2005): Holds that lack of education is insufficient to excuse delays in post-conviction filing. The opinion analogizes to reject the petitioner’s reliance on legal ignorance.
United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979): Establishes that formal Rule 11 violations are neither constitutional nor jurisdictional. The panel invokes Timmreck to dispose of the petitioner’s jurisdictional theory even if a Rule 11 error occurred.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps: threshold availability, diligence (“sound reasons”), and a brief merits note on the jurisdictional characterization of Rule 11.

Threshold Availability: Coram nobis cannot substitute for remedies that were available earlier. Relying on Alikhani, the court emphasized that coram nobis “is appropriate only when there is and was no other available avenue of relief.” The petitioner could have:
- Brought a direct appeal to raise a Rule 11 challenge (as Puentes-Hurtado confirms, an appeal waiver does not bar challenges to the plea’s validity); and/or
- Filed a § 2255 motion (including for ineffective assistance of counsel).
Because these avenues existed and were not pursued, the petition fails at the outset.
Diligence: No “sound reasons” for the delay. Under Gonzalez, a coram nobis petitioner must demonstrate sound reasons for not seeking earlier relief. The court found:
- The petitioner did not identify when he learned of the alleged error in his initial filings.
- The record contradicted his claim of late discovery; by 2010 he had already referenced the alleged missing transcript in post-conviction filings—yet he waited until April 2025 to file coram nobis.
- Ignorance of the law and general claims of counsel’s advice could not excuse a 12-year delay after sentence completion (and nearly 15 years after documented awareness), consistent with Gonzalez and Rivers.
Reviewing for clear error, the panel sustained the district court’s finding that the petitioner failed to show “sound reasons.”
Merits Note: Rule 11 errors are not jurisdictional. Even if the court reached the merits, the petitioner’s core claim failed as a matter of law under Timmreck: a “formal violation” of Rule 11 is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional and does not render the judgment void. The panel also observed that the criminal docket reflected a minute entry showing that a change-of-plea hearing actually occurred, undermining the contention that no colloquy took place; at most, the claim concerned the absence of a transcript, not the absence of a hearing.

Impact and Implications

Although unpublished and therefore nonprecedential in the Eleventh Circuit, the decision is a clear and persuasive reaffirmation of several points that will shape coram nobis practice:

Stringent diligence requirement: Petitioners must document, with specificity, when and how they learned of the alleged error and must act promptly thereafter. Long, unexplained delays will be fatal, especially where the record shows earlier awareness.
No end-run around § 2255 and direct appeal: Coram nobis is not a backdoor for claims that could have been raised earlier. The “is and was” language from Alikhani continues to preclude use of coram nobis as a remedy for self-created procedural default.
Rule 11 claims are non-jurisdictional: The panel’s reliance on Timmreck underscores that even serious procedural irregularities in plea colloquies do not void judgments for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This affects strategy: petitioners must show more than a procedural defect—they must meet the exceptional standards of coram nobis and, on collateral review, overcome Timmreck’s limits.
Appeal waivers are not absolute shields: The court’s citation to Puentes-Hurtado reminds practitioners that appeal waivers do not block challenges to plea validity. Failure to appeal a Rule 11 issue is unlikely to be excused later on the theory that a waiver prevented the challenge in the first place.
Documentation matters: A minute entry evidencing a plea hearing materially weakens assertions that no colloquy occurred. Absence of a transcript alone rarely suffices to show a fundamental error warranting coram nobis, particularly after long delay.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of error coram nobis: A rare post-conviction remedy for people who are no longer in custody but face ongoing consequences from a conviction. It cannot be used if the person could have used direct appeal or § 2255 earlier.
“Sound reasons” requirement: The petitioner must explain, with credible specifics, why the claim was not brought sooner. Courts reject vague excuses like “I didn’t know the law” or “my lawyer discouraged me” when years have passed.
Rule 11 (plea colloquy): Federal courts must ensure guilty pleas are knowing and voluntary. Procedural missteps in this process are serious, but under Timmreck they are not automatically constitutional or jurisdictional defects in collateral proceedings.
Jurisdictional vs. procedural errors: A jurisdictional defect means the court lacked power to hear the case; such errors typically cannot be waived and can void judgments. Procedural errors (like many Rule 11 issues) do not strip courts of power and usually must be timely raised.
Standards of review: The denial of coram nobis relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion (a deferential standard). A district court’s finding about whether the petitioner had “sound reasons” for delay is reviewed for clear error (even more deferential on factual findings).
Appeal waivers and plea validity: Waivers often bar sentencing challenges, but they do not prevent a defendant from arguing that the plea itself was invalid. That sort of claim must be raised timely on direct appeal or in a § 2255 motion.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in LeNeve underscores and clarifies three key pillars of coram nobis practice: (1) the writ is unavailable if direct appeal or § 2255 “were” available earlier; (2) a petitioner must show concrete, credible “sound reasons” for any delay—mere legal ignorance or generalized reliance on counsel is insufficient, especially over many years; and (3) alleged Rule 11 defects, including the absence of a transcript, are non-jurisdictional and do not render a conviction void.

For practitioners and pro se litigants, the opinion is a cautionary reminder that diligence is paramount and that coram nobis remains a truly extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for missed appellate or § 2255 opportunities. Even where a petitioner asserts a serious procedural irregularity, success will hinge on timely pursuit, the unavailability of earlier remedies, and a showing of fundamental error—standards this petitioner could not meet.