Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0987-01.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. Cary W. MEDILL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-56701.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
    Robert F. Conte, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Richard Gordon Stack, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory William Staples, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cary W. Medill, Beverly Hills, CA, pro se.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former federal prisoner Cary W. Medill 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.

Medill contends that the district court erred by dismissing his coram nobis petition as untimely. Because Medill has not alleged valid reasons for failing to attack the conviction earlier, he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis, and the district court did not err. 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) (per curiam) (entitlement to writ of coram nobis requires a showing of “sound reasons” for failure to seek relief earlier).

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