Defendant\u2019s petition for writ of error coram nobis is denied as untimely, even if available at all. The claim was authentication of warrant papers as an exhibit in 2013. That\u2019s not even a basis for the writ. He was charged with knowledge back then, and this isn’t timely. Moreover, he didn’t even file a 2255. Calzada v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12255 (W.D.Tex. Jan. 18, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cContrary to Hill’s assertions, the search warrant affidavit did not misrepresent the informant’s level of certainty. While one sentence of the detective’s affidavit misquoted the informant, when read in its entirety, the affidavit states that the informant saw Hill bury something in his backyard and that the informant believed the item to be stolen car keys. The affidavit does not state that the informant was positive that he saw Hill bury stolen car keys, as Hill claims. Because Hill did not establish that the alleged false statement was made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, the district court did not clearly err in denying his motion to suppress.\u201d United States v. Hill, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1963 (5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s petition for writ of error coram nobis is denied as untimely, even if available at all. The claim was authentication of warrant papers as an exhibit in 2013. That\u2019s not even a basis for the writ. He was charged … Continue reading