Allen v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 25-1962
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD ALFONSO ALLEN, AKA Wade No. 25-1962 Nurse, D.C. Nos. 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:10-cr-01232-SRB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Donald Alfonso Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

denying his second petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Kroytor, 977

* 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). F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2020), we affirm.

In his petition, Allen sought to vacate his 2010 conviction for unlawful

reentry, arguing that his underlying 2006 removal order was invalid and his

attorney rendered ineffective assistance. We agree with the district court that Allen

has failed to show valid reasons for the delay in challenging his conviction. See id.

(stating requirements for coram nobis relief). The record shows that Allen raised

similar claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, and insofar as he presented new

arguments in his coram nobis petition, he could have reasonably asserted them

earlier. See id. at 961-62. That Allen only recently learned his 2010 conviction

would enhance his sentence for a new federal drug offense explains his motive in

renewing his challenge to his 2010 conviction but does not justify his delay in

seeking relief. See Maghe v. United States, 710 F.2d 503, 503-04 (9th Cir. 1983).

Because Allen’s failure to meet this coram nobis requirement is dispositive,

we do not address the parties’ remaining arguments regarding Allen’s petition. See

Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because [the

coram nobis] requirements are conjunctive, failure to meet any one of them is

fatal.”). Allen also has not shown any error in the district court’s treatment of his

motion for default judgment.

The government’s motion for judicial notice is granted; Allen’s motion to

strike it is denied. Allen’s motion to file an amended reply brief is granted. The

2 25-1962 clerk will file the amended reply brief at Docket Entry No. 29. Allen’s motion to

file an oversized reply brief and the oversized reply brief are deemed withdrawn.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-1962