In Re Randolph George

In light of the fact that the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits disagree on the question whether in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition a petitioner can challenge a restitution order or order imposing costs of imprisonment based on a meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel [IAC] claim where such a challenge does not claim a right to be released from custody, And in light of the fact that it has been long held (Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963)) that “Where newly discovered evidence is alleged in a habeas application, evidence which could not reasonably have been presented to the state trier of facts [because of IAC], the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing,” THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS: Whether in a case like this one, where the petitioner was procedurally forced into filing an error coram nobis proceeding and denied the opportunity to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, claiming that his counsel was ineffective at trial and at sentencing, and where his petition was denied on the grounds that Section 2255 relief was unavailable because he had finished his sentence on his conviction and was no longer in custody, is it error for the court to deny his petition for writ of error coram nobis, seeking to vacate his convictions?