Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Darrell RUTLEDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 08-16810, 08-16812.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 3, 2010.
    Joshua Hill, Jr., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eugene Darrel Rutledge, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, former federal prisoner Eugene Darrell Rutledge appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rutledge seeks to vacate two prior federal convictions, claiming that his guilty pleas were constitutionally deficient and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Rutledge has not alleged valid reasons for failing to attack the convictions earlier, he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis. See United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th Cir.2005) abrogated on other grounds by Padilla v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010); see also Maghe v. United States, 710 F.2d 503, 503-04 (9th Cir.1983).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.