Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles M. WOOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-16384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 26, 2015.
    Charles M. Woolsey, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Charles M. Woolsey 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. We review the denial of a coram nobis petition de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

Woolsey challenges his 1974 guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the ground' that counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Because Woolsey has shown no valid reason for failing to attack his conviction earlier or an error “of the most fundamental character,” he is not entitled to a writ of error coram nobis, and the district court properly denied relief. See id. at 1005-06.

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