Court Opinion

ID: 4353567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-21 21:00:49.03845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:15.659332
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 21 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-35157

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00072-JLQ

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TIMOTHY JOSEPH CARLSON,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Washington
                 Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Timothy Joseph Carlson 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, and we affirm.

      This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a coram nobis

      *
             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).
petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). The

district court correctly denied Carlson’s petition. Carlson is still in custody and,

therefore, cannot show that a more usual remedy is unavailable to attack his

conviction. See id. at 761 (“A person in custody may seek relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Because the more usual remedy of a habeas petition is available,

the writ of error coram nobis is not.” (footnote omitted)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    18-35157