United States v. Rasheen Fairly , 692 F. App'x 932 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-16889
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:15-cv-00290-LJO
1:95-cr-05193-DAD
v.
RASHEEN D. FAIRLY, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Rasheen D. Fairly appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his petition for 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). We
agree with the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to review the
validity of Fairly’s state conviction. See Hensley v. Municipal Court, 453 F.2d
1252, 1252 n.2 (9th Cir. 1972) (“Coram nobis lies only to challenge errors
occurring in the same court.”), rev’d on other grounds, 411 U.S. 345 (1973); see
also Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d 577, 578 n.2 (9th Cir. 1955) (“[T]he writ can
issue, if at all, only in aid of the jurisdiction of the … court in which the conviction
was had.”)
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16889