Court Opinion

ID: 9841214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 17:01:00.676037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:35.549960
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-35715

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:09-cr-05703-DGE-2

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LAWANDA JOHNSON,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                   David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Former federal prisoner Lawanda Johnson appeals pro se from the district

court’s orders denying her petition for a writ of error coram nobis and motions for

reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), and we therefore deny
Johnson’s request for oral argument.
affirm.

      We agree with the district court that none of Johnson’s claims entitles her to

coram nobis relief. See id. at 1006 (stating requirements for coram nobis relief).

First, Johnson’s claims regarding a prosecution witness and a change in federal

regulations do not establish an error of the most fundamental character. Second,

Johnson has not demonstrated a valid reason for not raising earlier her claim

regarding the government’s alleged failure to provide relevant documents. Lastly,

Johnson has not established an error of the most fundamental character or a valid

reason for failing to raise the claims earlier with respect to her claims that the

government’s closing argument impermissibly referred to a statement from a

witness who did not testify, and that she could not intend to commit health care

fraud because one of her clinics was certified as a rural health clinic.

      Furthermore, the district court did not err by deciding Johnson’s petition

without an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively shows that Johnson

is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d

565, 573 n.25 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Whether a hearing is required on a coram nobis

motion should be resolved in the same manner as habeas corpus petitions.”).

      We do not address Johnson’s remaining arguments for coram nobis relief

because they were not properly presented to the district court. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court generally will not review

                                           2                                     22-35715
issues raised for the first time on appeal); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504,

507 (9th Cir. 1994) (claim for relief is not properly raised before the district court

if it is not made in the principal motion, and such a claim is therefore “not

cognizable on appeal”).

      Appellant’s motions for judicial notice are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3                                    22-35715