of error coram nobis. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506-07, 512-13, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) (noting the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006), and affirming a district court’s issuance of a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a conviction after the completion of the petitioner’s term of imprisonment); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir.1988) (same). The district court’s error was harmless because Hernandez-Monreal’s petition was ultimately meritless. Hernandez-Monreal relied upon the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Padilla v. Kentucky to argue ineffective assistance of counsel. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 599 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The record, however, shows that during his
holding counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation holding that trial counsel had a duty to inform client who is a resident legal alien whether his guilty plea carries a risk of deportation holding statements during voir dire and oral motion in limine were merely opaque references to deportation but  silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation and insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client holding record insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea when record is silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation