Clarence Adolphus v. United States
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Clarence Adolphus v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-adolphus-v-united-states-ca9-2019.