N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SC OTT ANDR

EW B R AB SON, a .k.a . Se a l A; JAY W ILLIAM R O SENDAHL, a .k.a
. Se a l B , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts, Nos. 15-56374

15-56377 D.C . Nos. 2:04-c r-01191-JFW 2:15-c v-04671-JFW 2:15-c v-04710-JFW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 11, 2017 ** B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, Sc ott Andre wB ra bson a nd Ja y W illia m R ose nda hl a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir pe t ition for a writ of e rror c oram

nobis a tta c king the ir 2005 guilty -ple a c onvic tions for 

# F IL ED

APR 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his d isposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion and is n ot pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lud es t h is cas e is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c onspira c y , fore ign tra v e l to prom ote c om

m e rc ia l bribe ry , a

nd wire fra

ud. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a nd m ay a ffirm on
any ground supporte d

by the re c ord. Se e Matus-Le v a v . Unite d State s , 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th C ir. 2002). A pe titione r’ s fa ilure to e sta blish a ny fa c tor ne c e ssa

ry to pre v a i l on a

pe tition for writ of error c oram nobis is “ fa ta l.” Id. In re c e nt litiga

tion with the

Am e ric an C ivil Libe rtie s Union, the De pa rtm e nt of Justic e disc lose d a

ppe lla nts’ c rim ina l c a se a s a c rim ina l prose c ution in whic h
m obile loc ation da

ta wa s obta ine d without a warrant. Appe lla nts c onte nd tha

t (1) the g ove rnm e nt’ s wa

rrantle s s c olle c tion of m obile loc a tion da ta viola te d the ir Fourth Am e ndm e n t

rights; a nd (2) the gove rnm e n t’ s fa ilure to disc lose the la c k of
a wa rrant viola

te s Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a nd Giglio v . Unite d State s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The se c la im s do not wa rra n t c o ra m

nobis re lie f be c a use a ppe lla n ts ha ve not shown a

n “ e rror of the m ost funda m e n ta l c ha

ra c te r.” Unite d State s v . Rie dl , 496 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th C ir. 2007). First, where , a s he re , a de fe nda nt is c onvic te d a s a

re sult of his guilty

ple a , “ t he va lidity

of tha t
c onvic tion c annot be a ffe c te d by an a lle ge d Fourth Am e ndm e n t viola tion be c a use the c onvic tion doe s not re st in a ny wa y on e vide nc e tha

t m ay have be e n

im prope rly
se iz e d.” Haring v . Prosise , 462 U.S. 306, 321 (1983). Se c ond, in the ir ple a
a gre e m e nts, a

ppe lla nts broa dly wa ive d the i r rights to pursue a ffirm at ive de fe nse s,

15
- 5 63 7 4 & 1 5
- 5 6 3 7 7 2any

Fourth or Fifth Am e ndm e nt c la im s, a nd m otions tha

t we re or c ould ha

ve be e n file d . This wa i ve r is va lid notwithsta nding thegove rnm e nt’ s a lle ge d fa i lure to disc lose t he la c k of a warrant. Se e Unite d State s v . Ruiz , 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002). Appe lla nts a lso ra ise num e rous c la im s of e rror involving, a m ong othe r things, a lle gations of judic ia l bia s a nd gove rnm e nt c ollusion, im prope r se arc h a

nd
se iz ure of prope rty

from the ir offic e s, due proc e ss viola tions, a nd the gove rnm e n t’ s fa ilure to re spond to c e rta i n disc ove ry re que sts during the ir c rim i na l prose c ution. Appe l la n ts ha ve fa ile d to m e e t the ir burde n of showing the ir te n-y e ar de la y in
ra ising the se a lle ge d e rrors wa s re a sona ble , a nd the y have not e s ta

blishe d funda m e nta l e rror a s to a

ny of the se c la im s. Se e Rie dl , 496 F.3d a t 1006. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err by de ny ing the pe tition without
c onduc ting furthe r e vide ntia ry proc e e dings. Se e Unite d State s v . Tay lor , 648 F.2d 565, 573 (9th C ir. 1981). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d the a

ppe l la nts’ a lle gations of judic ia l bia s in the c oram nobis proc e e dings. All pe nding m otions a

re de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

15
- 5 63 7 4 & 1 5
- 5 6 3 7 7 3