Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0444-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. '", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eugene H. MATHISON Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Defendant-Appellee Eugene H. Mathison Plaintif-Appellant v. United States of America Defendant-Appellee
    No. 16-4285, No. 16-4286
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 18, 2017
    Filed: July 26, 2017
    Eugene H. Mathison, Pro Se
    Stephanie Carlson Bengford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM. '

In these consolidated cases, Eugene Ma-thison appeals following the district court’s denial of his petitions for coram nobis relief. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied relief. See United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review; coram nobis writ should be granted only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice and to correct errors of most fundamental character); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir. 1966) (per curiam) (coram nobis petitioner not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal or in 28 U.S.C. § 2256 motion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.