the 2255 petition. He contends that his indictment and conviction would have been set aside but for his counsel’s omissions on this front. In opposition, the Government argues that because Mala is currently in custody, he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis. Furthermore, they contend that Mala’s writ is a mislabeled § 2255 petition, insofar as he reasserts speedy trial act violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments already addressed by this court. For purposes of determining whether Petitioner may seek coram nobis relief, this Court finds that he is not currently “in custody.” United States v. Bucci, 97-10263, *18, 2009 WL 2489171, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71768 (D.Mass. Aug. 11, 2009) (citing Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989)) (<HOLDING>). Although the Government points out that Mala
holding that defendants have a federal constitutional right to make a collateral attack on a prior conviction only when that conviction was obtained without the assistance of counsel holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed holding that forfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction holding the petitioners challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the underlying sentence because collateral consequences flowing from the conviction give the petitioner a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him holding that  once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it