1) Mr. Aceituno, a lawful permanent resident, was advised by his attorney that as a result of his guilty pleas to aggravated felonies in a drug case, he would likely be deported. The record is undisputed, however, that his attorney did not advise him he would face a lifetime ban on reentering the United States. The question presented is whether pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel, a criminal defense attorney is required to advise his client he will face a permanent ban on re-entry where the adverse immigration consequences are clear in the applicable statutes, and the attorney has reason to believe that a permanent ban on re-entry would be an important consideration in the defendant's decision about whether to enter a guilty plea.

2) Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court judge granted Mr. Aceituno's petition for a writ of coram nobis, allowing him to withdraw his guilty pleas, and finding that the delay with respect to the filing of his petition was reasonable. The questions presented are whether the First Circuit erred in concluding the district court judge abused his discretion in finding the filing was timely under the circumstances, and in holding the district court judge abused his discretion in granting the writ.

Whether a criminal defense attorney is required to advise a client of a permanent immigration re-entry ban under Padilla v. Kentucky and the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel