# Sonny Austin Ramdeo v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 20, 2025 · 136 F.4th 1348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11054124

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 20, 2025
- **Citations:** 136 F.4th 1348
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11054124

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that coram nobis is not categorically unavailable to prisoners in cus- tody, but also that this “does nothing to lower the high bar that any petitioner must clear to qualify for such relief.”
- finding that coram nobis relief may only be granted when the issue has not been “passed upon”

## Opinion text

USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 1 of 13

[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11699
____________________

SONNY AUSTIN RAMDEO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket Nos. 9:23-cv-80295-KAM,
9:12-cr-80226-KAM-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 2 of 13

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11699

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
GRANT, Circuit Judge:
Coram nobis, like other ancient writs, is rare—
“extraordinary” even. But of the many barriers to issuing coram
nobis, both substantive and procedural, a complete bar on seeking
that writ while in custody is not one of them. For Sonny Ramdeo,
who seeks coram nobis to escape restitution rather than
imprisonment, the fact that he remains in custody does not mean
he is ineligible for the writ.
I.
While working as a payroll director for a hospital-
management company called Promise Healthcare, Sonny Ramdeo
recommended that Promise hire a firm called PayServ Tax to help
facilitate tax payments. PayServ, he said, was a subsidiary of
Ceridian Corporation, a company that Promise had hired before
for similar services. Not true—PayServ was really Ramdeo’s
company and had no connection to Ceridian.
Promise, however, was none the wiser. Perhaps
predictably, the funds Promise sent PayServ did not go to the IRS.
Ramdeo instead used the money—all told, more than $20
million—to start a charter airline service.
But nothing lasts forever. Both Ramdeo’s scheme and his
airline met their end when Promise’s auditors noticed problems
and requested more information about PayServ. Despite
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 3 of 13

23-11699 Opinion of the Court 3

Ramdeo’s best efforts to cover his tracks—including a fake website,
a fake email address, and a fake email confirming that PayServ was
collecting and disbursing payroll taxes for Promise—he was
arrested, eventually pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud and
one count of money laundering. The district court sentenced him
to twenty years in prison, followed by three years of supervised
release. It also ordered him to pay $21,442,173 in restitution.
Ramdeo unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and
sentence, including the restitution amount, on direct appeal—but
that was only the beginning of his journey through the judiciary.
United States v. Ramdeo, 682 F. App’x 751, 752 (11th Cir. 2017)
(unpublished). About six months after completing his direct
appeal, Ramdeo again sought to challenge the restitution amount,
this time seeking a writ of audita querela. That writ is used to
challenge a judgment rendered infirm by matters “arising
subsequent to the rendition of the judgment.” United States v. Holt,
417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court first
recharacterized his petition as one for a writ of coram nobis and
then rejected that petition. On appeal, this Court said that because
Ramdeo’s claim did “not justify a writ of audita querela,” it would
decline to address whether audita querela could ever be used to
challenge a restitution order or whether coram nobis was
“available under the particular facts” of his case. See Ramdeo v.
United States, 760 F. App’x 900, 903 n.2 (11th Cir. 2019)
(unpublished) (italics omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 4 of 13

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11699

While the audita querela petition was pending, Ramdeo also
filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, again attempting to contest
(among other things) the amount of restitution set by the district
court. The district court denied his motion as “frivolous” and
“meritless”—at least under § 2255, which does not support
restitution challenges. This Court granted a limited certificate of
appealability and affirmed the district court’s order rejecting
Ramdeo’s claims. 1 See Ramdeo v. United States, No. 21-10112, 2022
WL 3418674, at *2 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (unpublished).
Ramdeo was still not finished. Roughly six months later, he
again challenged his restitution order, this time with a pro se
petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The new petition argued
that the restitution order violated due process because of
ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, plus
new financial evidence showing that the restitution amount had
been miscalculated.
Rather than addressing the merits of Ramdeo’s fourth
challenge to the restitution order, the district court denied the
petition on the basis that prisoners in federal custody are “ineligible
for coram nobis relief.” Ramdeo now appeals.

1 The only issue this Court reviewed was whether the district court erred by

limiting the claims that Ramdeo could raise in his second amended § 2255
motion. We said no, citing “Ramdeo’s abusive litigation habits.” Ramdeo,
2022 WL 3418674, at *2.
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 5 of 13

23-11699 Opinion of the Court 5

II.
We review a district court’s denial of coram nobis relief for
abuse of discretion. Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th
Cir. 2000). “A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling
rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion
of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” United States v.
Harding, 104 F.4th 1291, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotation
omitted).
III.
As Ramdeo’s consistent presence in the federal courts
proves, a criminal conviction is not always the end of the line for
defendants. To begin, direct appeal is always available absent a
plea waiver or other affirmative choice by a defendant. See Fed. R.
App. P. 3. Even after that, federal courts retain the authority to
issue some forms of relief after appeal—though interests in finality
and comity make it much harder to come by.
One way federal courts can offer relief is by issuing various
common law writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their
respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law.” All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). But these writs operate
only to “fill the interstices of the federal postconviction remedial
framework” when no statutory authority covers the same ground.
Holt, 417 F.3d at 1175 (quotation omitted); see Pennsylvania Bureau
of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985).
Habeas corpus has long been the most commonly known—
and used—among these. In 1948, Congress passed statutes
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 6 of 13

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11699

codifying federal habeas authority.2 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254–
55. Still, that codification does not mean the All Writs Act is a dead
letter. “Habeas corpus may be the Great Writ, but it isn’t the only
writ.” Rudolph v. United States, 92 F.4th 1038, 1048 (11th Cir. 2024).
Two others that are relevant here are audita querela, the writ
sought by Ramdeo in his earlier action, and coram nobis, the one
he seeks here. Neither, to be sure, is common in the modern era,
but both remain available.
The distinction between the two is largely one of timing.
Audita querela, as we said above, is employed to attack the
enforcement of a judgment that was “just and unimpeachable”
when entered, but is no longer so. United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d
484, 487 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Holt, 417 F.3d at 1174. Coram nobis,
on the other hand, is used to attack a judgment that “was infirm at
the time it was rendered.” Miller, 599 F.3d at 487; see also United
States v. Reyes, 945 F.2d 862, 863 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991).
The writ traces its origins to English courts, where it was
“directed to a court for review of its own judgment and predicated

2 One example is § 2255, the section Ramdeo tried to use in an earlier action.

That provision is “an outgrowth of the historic habeas corpus powers of the
federal courts as applied to the special case of federal prisoners.” Jones v.
Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 472 (2023). Section 2254 deals with habeas review for
state prisoners, and § 2241 makes habeas available “for all those who are not
challenging a criminal judgment, including those imprisoned in violation of
federal law without any conviction at all.” Nancy J. King & Joseph L.
Hoffmann, Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the
Great Writ 10 (2011).
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 7 of 13

23-11699 Opinion of the Court 7

on alleged errors of fact.” Coram Nobis, Black’s Law Dictionary
(12th ed. 2024). Coram nobis enabled the “same court where the
action was commenced and where the judgment was rendered to
avoid the rigid strictures of judgment finality by correcting
technical errors” like clerical mistakes. United States v. Denedo, 556
U.S. 904, 910–11 (2009) (quotation omitted).
The modern iteration of coram nobis, however, is “broader
than its common-law predecessor.” Id. at 911. The writ is no
longer confined to technical errors—it extends to factual and legal
errors too. See id. at 911–13. But the standard for relief is high.
Whether factual or legal, only “errors of the most fundamental
character” qualify.3 United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954)
(quotation omitted). In fact, review is “allowed through this
extraordinary remedy only under circumstances compelling such
action to achieve justice.” Id. at 511. And because coram nobis is
“a limited remedy of last resort,” it “may not issue when alternative
remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available.” United States v.
Swindall, 107 F.3d 831, 834 (11th Cir. 1997); Denedo, 556 U.S. at 911;
see United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2000). The
Supreme Court has even said that “it is difficult to conceive of a
situation in a federal criminal case today where that remedy would
be necessary or appropriate.” United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469,

3 Fundamental errors may include constitutional violations—such as
deprivation of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment—and
jurisdictional defects. See Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512; United States v. Peter, 310
F.3d 709, 715 (11th Cir. 2002).
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 8 of 13

8 Opinion of the Court 23-11699

475–76 n.4 (1947). The writ of coram nobis, in short, lives up to its
characterization as extraordinary.
Here, though, the question is not whether Ramdeo’s claims
substantively reach the high standard required for the writ of
coram nobis—it is whether he can file for the writ at all. The
government says no, arguing that it is “well established that coram
nobis relief is generally not available to petitioners who are still in
custody.” And to be fair, some of our precedents may suggest
that—but only at first glance.
The government’s primary authority is United States v. Peter,
where we stated that “coram nobis is a remedy available to vacate
a conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no
longer in custody, as is required for post-conviction relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255.” 310 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002). The
government also relies on United States v. Garcia—decided three
years before Peter—which explained that “[c]oram nobis relief is
unavailable to a person, such as the appellant, who is still in
custody.” 181 F.3d 1274, 1274 (11th Cir. 1999). But a closer look at
these cases and the earlier precedents that they draw from reveals
not a categorical rule about custody, but a specific application of
the more general rule: coram nobis relief is unavailable to prisoners
in federal custody when other avenues of relief, such as § 2255, are
available.
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 9 of 13

23-11699 Opinion of the Court 9

First, consider Correa-Negron v. United States, 473 F.2d 684
(5th Cir. 1973). 4 There, a federal prisoner petitioned for release
from custody through coram nobis, and we explained that coram
nobis “is only available to correct errors of the most fundamental
character where the circumstances are compelling to achieve
justice.” Id. at 685. We went on to note that “coram nobis normally
lies only when the petitioner is no longer in federal custody.” Id.
(emphasis added). But the reason? The writ is “open to a prisoner
only when his statutory remedies are unavailable or inadequate.”
Id. And while “a petitioner is still in federal custody, relief from a
prior invalid conviction must be sought by means of § 2255.” Id.
So after confirming that the petitioner’s challenge was cognizable
under § 2255, we affirmed the denial of the coram nobis petition.
Id. What Correa-Negron established is that prisoners in custody can
only challenge their custodial sentences under § 2255—a non-
controversial point. But that has no bearing on restitution
challenges because they do not qualify for relief under § 2255,
whether the petitioner is in or out of custody. See Blaik v. United
States, 161 F.3d 1341, 1342–43 (11th Cir. 1998).
Next came United States v. Brown, where we again concluded
that coram nobis was not allowed because the petitioner, who
sought release from custody, had a remedy under § 2255. 117 F.3d
471, 475 (11th Cir. 1997). “Because Brown was in custody within

4 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, this Court adopted as binding precedent all

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. See
661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 10 of 13

10 Opinion of the Court 23-11699

the meaning of § 2255 when he filed his petition in the district
court,” the “statutory remedies of that provision were available to
him, and coram nobis relief was unavailable as a matter of law.”
Id.
And Garcia is more of the same. The petitioner there sought
to vacate his sentence of custody through a writ of coram nobis.
Garcia, 181 F.3d at 1274. But he had already attacked his sentence
under § 2255 and lost. Id. We explained in a short per curiam
opinion that the coram nobis petition was not the proper vehicle
for his challenge. Id. at 1275. The opinion’s statement that
“[c]oram nobis relief is unavailable to a person, such as the
appellant, who is still in custody” was perhaps too broad, but it
cited only Brown in support, which made no such categorical rule.
Id. at 1274. The court did not have before it, and did not consider,
a case like this one where the in-custody petitioner did not seek
release.
Finally, Peter—the government’s chief authority—does not
alter our conclusion. There, the petitioner sought to vacate his
conviction after he had been released from custody, and the Court
ultimately determined that coram nobis relief was available. Peter,
310 F.3d at 711, 716. The government overreads the opinion’s
statement that “coram nobis is a remedy available to vacate a
conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no
longer in custody, as is required for post-conviction relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255.” Id. at 712. Yes, a petitioner seeking to vacate his
conviction—something directly covered by § 2255—cannot use
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 11 of 13

23-11699 Opinion of the Court 11

coram nobis unless he is out of custody and unable to use § 2255.
But Peter says nothing about challenges to restitution orders, which
cannot be brought under § 2255.
All that these precedents instruct, then, is that coram nobis
relief is unavailable to an in-custody prisoner who seeks release
from custody. Any such request may only come under § 2255. But
the unavailability of coram nobis for release from custody says
nothing about whether that writ can touch restitution. After all,
common law writs like coram nobis remain available to “fill the
interstices of the federal postconviction remedial framework.”
Holt, 417 F.3d at 1175 (quotation omitted). And we have been clear
that § 2255 cannot be used to challenge restitution orders. See
Blaik, 161 F.3d at 1342–43.
Why? One of the “technical limitations” of habeas corpus
relief under § 2255 is that it can only be used to seek release from
custody.5 Peter, 310 F.3d at 712; see Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S.
236, 238 (1963). “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court
established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be
released . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)
(emphasis added); see also Rudolph, 92 F.4th at 1044–45. Plus,
habeas corpus cannot be extended to challenges to non-custodial
aspects of a sentence, even when a non-custodial claim is brought
in the same petition as a custodial one. See Mamone v. United States,

5 Both parole and supervised release satisfy the “in custody” requirement. See

Jones, 371 U.S. at 243; Brown, 117 F.3d at 475.
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 12 of 13

12 Opinion of the Court 23-11699

559 F.3d 1209, 1210–11 (11th Cir. 2009); Blaik, 161 F.3d at 1342–43.
A reduction in restitution is plainly not a release from custody, so
§ 2255 cannot be used to attack “the restitution portion” of a
sentence. Blaik, 161 F.3d at 1343. That means Ramdeo’s present
challenge is not cognizable under § 2255.
But the “unavailability of relief under § 2255 does not leave
a deserving petitioner entirely without recourse.” Barnickel v.
United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1997). Though a coram
nobis petition and a petition under § 2255 are “of the same general
character,” § 2255 does not “cover the entire field of remedies in
the nature of coram nobis in federal courts.” Morgan, 346 U.S. at
505–06 n.4, 510 (italics omitted). In fact, “the writ of error coram
nobis acts as an assurance that deserved relief will not be denied as
a result of the technical limitations of other post-conviction
remedies.” Peter, 310 F.3d at 712. That’s not to say we are certain
that a writ of coram nobis can correct a restitution order—we have
never decided that one way or the other. See Arnaiz v. Warden, Fed.
Satellite Low, 594 F.3d 1326, 1329 n.3 (11th Cir. 2010). But what we
can say is that it does not depend on whether the petitioner is in
custody.
IV.
This determination that coram nobis is not categorically
barred for those in custody also does nothing to lower the high bar
that any petitioner must clear to qualify for such relief. Because
coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy, relief may only issue
when (1) “no other remedy is available and the petitioner presents
USCA11 Case: 23-11699 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 13 of 13

23-11699 Opinion of the Court 13

sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier”; and (2) “the error
involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which
has not been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the
proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204;
Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734 (quotation omitted).
The government contends that even if being in custody does
not thwart Ramdeo’s coram nobis petition, his claim still fails on
the merits. That may well be true. The government argues several
alternative bases for affirming the district court: (1) Ramdeo failed
to show there are or were no other available avenues for relief;
(2) Ramdeo failed to show a fundamental error not previously put
in issue or passed upon; (3) Ramdeo did not provide sound reasons
for failing to seek coram nobis relief earlier; and (4) principles of
finality counsel against affording Ramdeo this extraordinary relief.
But the district court did not address any of these issues, and we
decline to do so here. We conclude only that there is no out-of-
custody requirement for prisoners challenging a non-custodial
aspect of their sentence through the writ of error coram nobis.
* * *
We VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND this
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11054124. Public record. Not legal advice.