a technical oversight in the indictment. 8 .This Court is aware of a recent Fourth Circuit case allowing defendants whose sentences were ■vacated after a successful § 2255 challenge based upon Bailey to be resentenced. United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir.1997). That appeal was limited only to the issue of whether a defendant could be resentenced after a conviction had been vacated. Retroactivity was not analyzed, possibly because the case was considered on expedited review. 9 . The Fourth Circuit did consider such claims before Teague but after Davis. See United States v. Bonnette, 781 F.2d 357 (4th Cir.1986) (concluding that a reinterpretation in a mail fraud statute should be applied retroactively); see also United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1074-75 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Bonnette certainly does not resoundingly
recognizing that under the common law applications for writs of error coram nobis were civil in character holding same for writ of error coram nobis holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner holding that rule 4as time limits govern an appeal from a district court order granting or denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis recognizing common law rule that the proceedings upon an application for a writ of error coram nobis were like proceedings in habeas corpus regarded as civil in character