Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Appellant
    No. 15-3039
    September Term, 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed: 11/18/2016
    Elizabeth Harper Danello, Elizabeth Trosman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Marco Antonio Palmieri, USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Appellate Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alexander Otis Matthews, Pro Se.
    BEFORE: Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
   JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties/including appellant’s supplement. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 27, 2015 order be affirmed. This is not an extraordinary case warranting coram nobis relief. United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009). Appellant has not shown that the alleged Rule 11 violations affected his substantial rights, see In re Sealed Case, 670 F.3d 1296, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 2011), or that his attorney’s performance was deficient and he was prejudiced thereby, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.