Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0027-01.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. Jorge Albert ESTRELLA-MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-16706.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 16, 2009.
    Reese V. Bostwick, Esquire, USTU-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Aaron Harwin, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Harwin, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Albert Estrella-Molina appeals the district court’s denial of his Motion to Clarify Sentence, or in the Alternative, Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Judgment as well as the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider. We affirm.

Judge Marquez’s decision makes no mention of the Federal Youth Corrections Act provision for discharging an offender’s probation. Therefore, the district court’s finding that Judge Marquez did not intend to set aside Estrella-Molina’s conviction was not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err by denying Estrella-Molina’s motion to clarify his sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).

The district court also did not err in denying Estrella-Molina’s petition for a writ of coram nobis. To warrant issuance of the writ, an error must have been of “the most fundamental character.” United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.2007). In reviewing a district court’s denial of the writ, findings of fact must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 594 (9th Cir.1987). As stated above, the district court did not err in finding that Judge Marquez did not intend to set aside Estrella-Molina’s conviction. Therefore, Estrella-Molina has not identified any error, let alone an error of the most fundamental character.

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