Whether a defendant's reliance on erroneous advice from counsel, the Court of Appeals and novelty of a legal interpretation constitutes valid reasons for not attacking the conviction earlier under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

2. Is there an error committed by the Fourth Circuit in failing to conduct a Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) analysis of Mr. Littlejohn's ineffective assistance of counsel which often conflation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process with Sixth Amendment rights when analyzing assistance of counsel in deciding whether he failed establish a valid reason for the delay in filing a coram nobis petition and failure to address the novelty of the question as a basis for the delay?

3. Whether a petitioner who is "in custody" can utilize a coram nobis to challenge non-custodial aspects of a criminal judgment.

Whether a defendant's reliance on erroneous advice from counsel, the Court of Appeals and novelty of a legal interpretation constitutes 'valid reasons' for not attacking the conviction earlier under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)