Coram Nobis Claim Fails on Failure to Prove Underlying Offense Subsection

US v. McDaniel: In 1993, McDaniel was involved with a robbery that turned into a chase in which he (the front seat passenger in a car) “leaned from a car window and fired at least two pistol shots” at the pursuing US Marshal. He eventually pleaded guilty to an information charging him with using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence – “an assault on a deputy marshal” and was sentenced to 36 months in prison. In 2005, McDaniel was charged in a multi-count indictment with  (among other things) another firearm possession offense, this time in connection with a drug trafficking crime. Due to his 1993 conviction, McDaniel was subject to the 25-year mandatory minimum on that charge because it was his second such conviction.

In the wake of Johnson and other cases narrowing the relevant definition of “crime of violence,” McDaniel sought relief, either through a 28 USC 2255 motion or a writ of coram nobis, arguing that his 1993 conviction was invalid because his assault offense did not meet the definition of crime of violence. The district court denied relief, on the 2255 because he was no longer in custody related to that offense, and on the coram nobis because McDaniel had failed to prove that the version of assault for which he was convicted was not a crime of violence.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. McDaniel proceeded only on the coram nobis theory, arguing that the version of assault for which he was convicted did not require the necessary level of force to qualify as a crime of violence. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the relevant statute, 18 USC 111, set forth different offenses in subsection (a) and (b), with the first no longer qualifying as a crime of violence. The court rejected McDaniel’s argument that the firearm enhancement in subsection (b) could be committed recklessly. Under the standard for obtaining coram nobis relief, however, McDaniel had to prove with certainty which version of the offense he had been convicted of committing. The relevant documents were not sufficiently clear to support that burden.