Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Hobart ZENTMYER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-03
Citations: 669 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 15-56108
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Hobart ZENTMYER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Hobart ZENTMYER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-56108
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 03, 2016
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jill Therese Feeney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA.
John Hobart Zentmyer, Lakeside, CA, Pro Se.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Former federal prisoner John Hobart Zentmyer appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis, see Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
Zentmyer contends that the district court violated his due process rights by denying his petition sua sponte after the government had defaulted by failing to file a timely response. We need not determine whether the district court erred in this regard because the record shows that Zentmyer is ineligible for coram nobis relief. See id. ("We may affirm on any ground finding support in the record."). The district court correctly concluded that Zentmyer has not shown that valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier or that "the error is of a fundamental character." See id. (listing requirements for coram nobis relief).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.