Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rasheen D. FAIRLY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-03
Citations: 692 F. App'x 932
Docket Number: No. 16-16889
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rasheen D. FAIRLY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 932–933

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rasheen D. FAIRLY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-16889
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 3, 2017
Karen A. Escobar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Rasheen D. Fairly, Pro Se
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges,
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2), ,

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Rasheen D. Fairly appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his petition for writ of error co-rana nobis. We have jurisdiction under .28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
This court reviews de novo the district court's denial of a coram nobis petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). We agree with the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of Fairly's state conviction. See Hensley v. Municipal Court, 453 F.2d 1252, 1252 n.2 (9th Cir. 1972) ("Coram nobis lies only to challenge errors occurring in the same court."), rev'd on other grounds, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); see also Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d 577, 578 n.2 (9th Cir. 1955) ("[T]he writ can issue, if at all, only in aid of the jurisdiction of the . court in which the conviction was had.")
AFFIRMED.
This, disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.