Stoller v. United States

697 F. App'x 10
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 31, 2017·No. No. 16-5360·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the [11]*11brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 3, 2016 order be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s petition for writ of coram nobis challenging a judgment of conviction entered by an Illinois state court. See United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 913, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009) (explaining that, to grant a writ of coram nobis, a court “must have had statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over [the] original judgment of conviction”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

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

Stoller v. United States, 697 F. App'x 10 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

697 F. App'x 10 (Stoller v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tijerina v. State of Idaho
District of Columbia, 2025
Nabaya v. Lauck
District of Columbia, 2024
Lindberg v. Assam
District of Columbia, 2023