United States v. Randy George

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 3, 2018
• Docket: 16-17254
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-17254

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:01-cr-00326-MMC

v.

RANDY GEORGE, a.k.a. Randolph MEMORANDUM* George,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Randy George appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his

petition for a writ of error coram nobis and motion for reconsideration. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see United States v.

Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and 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). George seeks to vacate his 2002 conviction for making and subscribing false

tax returns and willful failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7203,

7206(1). He contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview

and subpoena Harry Gordon Oliver II, a tax professional, who would have

supported George’s good faith reliance defense. The district court properly denied

coram nobis relief because George has not shown an error of the most fundamental

character. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006. Although the record reflects that tax

professionals advised George how to report his receivership fees, it does not show

that George ever reported those fees on any return in accordance with their advice.

Contrary to George’s assertion, the evidence submitted in support of his coram

nobis petition fails to demonstrate that he relied on the tax professionals’ advice.

Accordingly, George has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for

trial counsel’s alleged error, the result of his jury trial would have been different.

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

Furthermore, the record reflects that George is ineligible for coram nobis

relief because he has failed to demonstrate any valid reason for not attacking his

conviction earlier. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006-07; see also Matus-Leva v. United

States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We may affirm on any ground finding

support in the record.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-17254