Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel M. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-27
Citations: 558 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 12-35982
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel M. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 758–758

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel M. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-35982.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
James Matthew Peters, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel M. Davis, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Daniel M. Davis appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
Davis challenges his 2002 guilty-plea conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Because Davis has not shown valid reasons for failing to attack the conviction earlier or an error "of the most fundamental character," he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis, and the district court properly denied relief. See id. at 1006-07.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.