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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAIM E DOC HER TY PR IC E , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-56442

D.C . Nos. 2:12-c v-00869-C AS

2:98-c r-00892-C AS-4
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 C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 21, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD a

nd PAEZ, C i rc uit Judge s, a n d C HR ISTENSEN, C hie f Distric t Judge
. ** Ja im e Doc h e rty Pric e ple d guilty in Oc tobe r 1998 to two c ounts re lating to a robbe ry of the owne r of a

re sta urant e nga ge d in inte rstate c om m e rc e . C ount One
a lle ge d a viola

tion of theHobbs Ac t, 18 U.S.C . § 1951, a nd C ount Two a lle ge d the 

# FIL ED
JAN 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Da na L. C hriste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.use of a

fire arm in the c om

m i ssion of theHobbs Ac t robbe ry in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ). Pric e wa s one of se ve ra l de fe nda nts na m e d in theindic tm e nt. Pric e se rve d 101 m onths in prison a nd thre e y e ars unde r supe rvise d re le a s e , but
c ontinue s to owe re s titution a nd fa c e c olla

t e ra l c onse que nc e s from

his c onvic tion. Pric e file d a pe tition for writ of error c oram nobis in fe d e ra l distric t c ourt, whic h the d istric t c o urt de n ie d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we
a ffirm
. 1. Pric e argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in c onc luding tha t his guilty

ple a ba rre d this c olla

te ra l atta c k

on his c o nvic tion. This a rgum e nt is without m

e rit. “ A s
a ge n e ra l rule , a

de fe nda n t who e nte rs a

volunta ry and inte llige nt guilty

ple a ‘ m ay not the re a fte r ra i se inde pe nde nt c la im s re lating to the de priva tion of c onstitutiona

l rights tha t oc c urre d prior to thee ntry of the guilty

ple a .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Garc iaVale nzue la , 232 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting Tolle tt v
. He nde rson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)). “ Although a

guilty ple a ge ne ra lly wa ive s a ll c la im s of
c onstitutiona

l viola t ion oc c urring be fore the ple a , ‘ j urisdic tiona l’ c la im s a re an
e xc e ption to this rule .” Unite d State s v . C ape re ll , 938 F.2d 975, 977 (9th C ir. 1991). Still, “ [j] urisdic tion a rise s by ope ra tion of la

w whe n c e rta in fa c ts a lle ge d in the i ndic t m e nt a re prove d , whe the r by

guilty ple a , by judgm e nt, or by

jury ve rdic t.”

2Unite d

State s v . Mathe w

s , 833 F.2d 161, 164 (9th C ir. 1987), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Young v . Holde r , 697 F.3d 976, 986 (9th C i r. 2012) (e n ba nc ). 2. The ge ne ra l rule , not thee xc e ption, a pplie s to Pric e ’ s pe tition. B y ple a ding guilty , one m a

y “ a dm it[] e ve n

those fa c t

ua l a lle gations in the

indic tm e nt that form the pre dic ate for fe de ra l jurisdic tion.” Id. ; Unite d State s v . Dav is , 452 F.2d 577, 578 (9th C ir. 1971) (pe r c uriam ). Pric e atte m p ts to re ly on the fa c t tha

t the g ove rnm e nt a

t a c ode fe nda

nt’ s tria l pre se nte d insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to prove the jurisdic tiona l e l e m e nt of e a c h c ount, se e Unite d State s v . Hung , 45 Fe d. App’ x. 793, 794 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd tha t the gove rnm e nt la

te r dism isse d c h arge s a ga inst two othe r c ode fe nda

nts. B ut the se e ve nts did not unde rm ine the distric t c ourt’ s jurisdic tion to c onvic t Pric e . Pric e , unlike those c ode fe nda nts, ple d guilty

to both
c ounts a nd his guilty

ple a e sta blishe d the fa c tua l ba sis for the distric t c ourt’ s jurisdic tion. Se e Mathe w s , 833 F.2d a

t 164. M ore ove r, Pric e ’ s pe tition re late s only to the fa c t

ua l ba sis for the e le m e nts of thec ha rge d offe n se , not to thepowe r of the distric t c ourt. S

e e Garc ia-Vale nzue la , 232 F.3d a t 1007; se e also Unite d State s v . Ratigan , 351 F.3d 957, 962–63 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [C ] ourts ha v e
c onsiste n tly

de te rm ine d tha

t the jurisdic tiona l e le m e nt of fe de ra l c rim e s doe s not pre s e nt a pure que stion of thec ourt’ s subje c t-m atte r jurisdic t ion.” ). The re fore , Pric e fa ils to a lle ge a c la im suffic ie nt to e x c e p t his pe tition from the ge ne ra l rule

3ba

rring c olla

te ra l atta c k s on volunta

ry an d inte llige nt guilty

ple a s. For this re a son, the d istric t c o urt prope rly de nie d Pric e ’ s pe tition. 3. Alte rnative ly , Pric e argue s tha t funda m e nta l e rror warranting c oram nobis re lie f arose from his c onvic tion on the ba sis of his guilty

ple a whe n one
c ode fe nda

nt ha d his c onvic tion va c ate d on a ppe a l an d two othe r c ode fe nda nts’
c ha rge s we re dism isse d by

the gove rnm e nt. W e ne e d not issue a c e rtific at e of
a ppe a la bility to c onside r this ground for re lie f. S e e Unite d State

s v . K w an , 407 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th C ir. 2005), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Padilla v

. K e ntuc k y , 559 U.S. 356 (2010). B ut this a rgum e nt a lso is without m e rit. 4. “ [T] he writ of e rror c oram nobis is a

highly unusua l re m e d

y , ava ila ble only to c orre c t gra

ve injustic e s in a

na rrow range of c a se s whe re no m o re
c onve ntiona l re m e dy is a

pplic a ble
. ” U n ite d State

s v . Rie d l , 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2007); Hirabay a shi v . Unite d State s , 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th C ir. 1987). Pric e c ann ot show funda

m e nta l e rror. Pric e atte m pts to re l y on the re sults in his c ode fe nda

nts’ c a se s , but theba se s for re lie f in thosec a se s we re fa c t-spe c ific
. Se e H ung , 45 Fe d. App’ x. at 794. W h e n Pric e ple d guilty to the fa c tua l a lle gations in his indic tm e nt he re lie ve d t he gove rnm e nt of its burden to prove those fa c tua l
a lle gations. Se e Unite d State s v . Mc C le lland , 941 F.2d 999, 1002–03 (9th C ir.

41991). The re fore , Pric e fa ils to show the ty pe of funda

m e n ta l e rror we re quire to gran t c oram

nobis re lie f. AFFIRM E D.

5