remedied by granting of the writ. Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1996) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). We assume, without deciding, that the fact that Ramirez is still serving his custodial sentence does not preclude him from seeking relief by way of coram nobis. We review de novo “the standards that a District Court applies in considering the writ of error coram nobis and review for abuse of discretion a District Court’s final decision to deny the writ.” Porcelli, 404 F.3d at 158 (2d Cir.2005). (2) Ramirez argues on appeal that the district court deprived him of his right to be present at his sentencing. See, e.g., Fed. R.Crim.P. 43(a)(3) (defendant must be present at sentencing); United States v. Agard, 77 F.3d 22, 24-25 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). How ever, Ramirez was, in fact, present for
recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public holding right to testify was federal constitutional right recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights