With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of error coram nobis. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506-07, 512-13, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) (noting the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006), and affirming a district court’s issuance of a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a conviction after the completion of the petitioner’s term of imprisonment); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir.1988) (same). The district court’s error was harmless because Hernandez-Monreal’s petition was ultimately meritless. Hernandez-Monreal relied upon the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Padilla v. Kentucky to argue ineffective assistance of counsel. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 599 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The record, however, shows that during his

A: holding statements during voir dire and oral motion in limine were merely opaque references to deportation but  silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation and insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea
B: holding counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation
C: holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client
D: holding that trial counsel had a duty to inform client who is a resident legal alien whether his guilty plea carries a risk of deportation
B.