Clarence Adolphus v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 22, 2019
Docket17-56694
StatusUnpublished

This text of Clarence Adolphus v. United States (Clarence Adolphus v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clarence Adolphus v. United States, (9th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE RUDOLPH ADOLPHUS, No. 17-56694 AKA Seal A, D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-08800-CAS Petitioner-Appellant, 2:04-cr-00402-CAS-1

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Clarence Rudolph Adolphus appeals 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th

Cir. 2007), we affirm.

* 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). Adolphus’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis raises several contentions

of error in connection with his 2007 guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to

distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to launder money. But Adolphus is

still in custody in connection with that conviction. See United States v. Monreal,

301 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner is in custody if he has not yet

completed his term of supervised release). “A person in custody may seek relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761

(9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Adolphus

cannot avail himself of coram nobis relief because he cannot show that a more

usual remedy is unavailable to attack his conviction. See id. at 760-61.

Adolphus’s motion to file a corrected opening brief and excerpts of record is

granted. The clerk will strike the brief at Docket Entry No. 19 and file the brief

and excerpts of record at Docket Entry No. 30.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-56694

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alejandro Matus-Leva v. United States
287 F.3d 758 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. George Alberto Monreal
301 F.3d 1127 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Riedl
496 F.3d 1003 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clarence Adolphus v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-adolphus-v-united-states-ca9-2019.