United States v. Sanborn
This text of 175 F. App'x 156 (United States v. Sanborn) 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
MEMORANDUM
Elmer Edward Sanborn appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging his 1995 conviction for disorderly conduct in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(4). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Estate of McKinney v. United States, 71 F.3d 779, 781 (9th Cir.1995), we affirm.
The writ of error coram nobis provides a remedy to attack a conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence, is no longer in custody, and is suffering from the “lingering collateral consequences of an unconstitutional or unlawful conviction based on errors of fact and egregious legal errors.” See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to qualify for coram nobis relief, a petitioner must meet four requirements, one of which is to demonstrate that valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier. See id. Because Sanborn has not shown a valid reason for failing to attack his conviction earlier, we affirm the district court’s denial.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
175 F. App'x 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sanborn-ca9-2006.