United States v. Petersen (11th Cir. 2025): A Clearer Timeliness Standard for Successive Coram Nobis Petitions

Introduction

In United States v. David Petersen, the Eleventh Circuit again confronted the extraordinary writ of error coram nobis. David Petersen, a former federal inmate convicted in 2013 of securities fraud, aiding and abetting securities fraud, and wire fraud, filed his second coram nobis petition after completing his custodial sentence. He alleged that, before trial, a federal prosecutor privately admitted that the Government knew Petersen lacked the requisite knowledge to commit the offenses charged. He also invoked the Supreme Court’s 2024 opinion in Fischer v. United States, claiming it constituted “newly discovered evidence.” The district court denied relief; the Government sought summary affirmance. The Eleventh Circuit granted that request, sharpening the contours of two recurring coram nobis questions:

When does delay render a coram nobis petition untimely?
What qualifies as “newly discovered evidence” sufficient to reopen a final criminal judgment?

Summary of the Judgment

Sitting per curiam, Judges Luck, Kidd, and Anderson affirmed the district court and summarily disposed of Petersen’s appeal. The Court held:

Petersen’s decade-long delay—despite personal knowledge of the alleged prosecutorial statement—barred coram nobis relief because he failed to present “sound reasons” for not raising the issue sooner (Mills standard).
Fischer v. United States is neither “evidence” nor materially related to 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting); therefore, it cannot justify reopening Petersen’s convictions.
Successive attempts to re-litigate sufficiency of the evidence, defects in the indictment, or ineffective assistance are foreclosed, having been previously adjudicated.
The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion, and summary affirmance was appropriate under Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2000) – Establishes coram nobis as an extraordinary remedy of last resort available only when no other remedy exists and the petitioner offers “sound reasons” for delayed assertion. This is the backbone of the Court’s timeliness holding.
Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2000) – Restricts coram nobis to fundamental factual errors not previously litigated.
Gonzalez v. United States, 981 F.3d 845 (11th Cir. 2020) – Once aware of a claim’s factual basis, a petitioner cannot delay filing absent a compelling rationale.
United States v. Bane, 948 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) – Provides the “abuse-of-discretion” framework for reviewing denial of coram nobis.
Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480 (2024) – Narrowly confined § 1512(c)(2) obstruction liability; Petersen sought to analogize it to § 2.
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969) – Authorizes summary disposition where the outcome is legally indisputable.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a rigorous, three-part coram nobis framework:

No other remedy available. Because Petersen had completed his sentence, § 2255 habeas relief was unavailable. Coram nobis was theoretically proper.
Fundamental error. The alleged prosecutorial admission concerned mens rea—arguably a “matter of fact” bordering on the weight of the evidence. Yet the jury had already resolved mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and prior appeals affirmed that finding. Under Alikhani, coram nobis does not lie to correct evidentiary disputes or re-weigh facts.
Timeliness / due diligence. Here lies the new clarifying principle: a petitioner who personally knows the factual basis of his claim cannot wait ten years without a particularized explanation. General claims of pro se disadvantage or FOIA pursuits are insufficient when the operative fact—the prosecutor’s alleged statement—was known before trial.

On the “newly discovered evidence” prong, the Court defined the term narrowly:

Case law—especially opinions involving different statutory text—is not “evidence.”
To resurrect a conviction via coram nobis, new authority must either (i) render prior law unconstitutional or (ii) squarely overrule a controlling precedent that governed the trial. Fischer did neither.

Impact of the Decision

Though unpublished, the decision sends three practical signals to criminal practitioners within the Eleventh Circuit:

Heightened burden for delayed petitions. After Petersen, any coram nobis applicant must spell out a timeline demonstrating diligent pursuit. Vague references to legal complexity or self-representation will rarely suffice.
Limited use of intervening Supreme Court cases. Litigants cannot brandish a new high-court decision as “evidence” unless the decision directly undermines the statute of conviction or the controlling precedent at the time of trial.
Efficient docket management. By endorsing summary affirmance under Groendyke, the Court empowers the Government to streamline frivolous successive petitions, conserving judicial resources.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Error Coram Nobis: A centuries-old common-law remedy allowing a court to correct its own criminal judgment after the sentence has been served, but only for fundamental errors that could not have been raised earlier.
Mens Rea: The mental state required to commit a crime. Petersen argued the Government “knew” he lacked this mental state.
Willful Blindness Instruction: A jury charge permitting conviction when a defendant deliberately avoids learning a fact that is obvious—functionally equivalent to knowledge.
Summary Affirmance: An appellate disposition without full briefing or oral argument where the outcome is legally certain.
“Sound Reasons” Requirement: Coram nobis petitioners must explain, with specificity, why they could not previously raise the alleged error. The bar is comparable to equitable tolling doctrines in other post-conviction contexts.

Conclusion

United States v. Petersen tightens the gatekeeping function of coram nobis within the Eleventh Circuit. By refusing to excuse a decade of delay and by rejecting creative efforts to recast new case law as “new evidence,” the Court reaffirmed that coram nobis is truly extraordinary. For future litigants, the message is clear: raise claims when the facts first emerge, and tether “new evidence” arguments to concrete, statute-specific changes in the law. Anything less is unlikely to disturb a long-final criminal judgment.