Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0932-01.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. Rasheen D. FAIRLY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-16889
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Karen A. Escobar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Rasheen D. Fairly, Pro Se
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2), ,
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Rasheen D. Fairly appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of error co-rana nobis. We have jurisdiction under .28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a coram nobis petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of Fairly’s state conviction. See Hensley v. Municipal Court, 453 F.2d 1252, 1252 n.2 (9th Cir. 1972) (“Coram nobis lies only to challenge errors occurring in the same court.”), rev’d on other grounds, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); see also Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d 577, 578 n.2 (9th Cir. 1955) (“[T]he writ can issue, if at all, only in aid of the jurisdiction of the ... court in which the conviction was had.”)

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This, disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.