Case Name: Charles M. WOOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-26
Citations: 608 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 14-16384
Parties: Charles M. WOOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
Charles M. WOOLSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-16384.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed June 26, 2015.
Charles M. Woolsey, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Charles M. Woolsey 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 coram nobis petition de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
Woolsey challenges his 1974 guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the ground' that counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Because Woolsey has shown no valid reason for failing to attack his conviction earlier or an error "of the most fundamental character," he is not entitled to a writ of error coram nobis, and the district court properly denied relief. See id. at 1005-06.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.