United States v. Timothy Carlson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 21, 2018
• Docket: 18-35157
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-35157

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00072-JLQ

v. MEMORANDUM* TIMOTHY JOSEPH CARLSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Timothy Joseph Carlson appeals pro se 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, and we affirm.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a coram nobis

* 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). petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). The

district court correctly denied Carlson’s petition. Carlson is still in custody and,

therefore, cannot show that a more usual remedy is unavailable to attack his

conviction. See id. at 761 (“A person in custody may seek relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Because the more usual remedy of a habeas petition is available,

the writ of error coram nobis is not.” (footnote omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35157