United States v. Mario Villabona-Alvarado , 599 F. App'x 779 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-55477
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-05080-GHK
2:88-cr-00972-GHK
v.
MARIO ERNESTO VILLABONA- MEMORANDUM*
ALVARADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Mario Ernesto Villabona-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s
judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his
convictions stemming from a 1990 trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Villabona-Alvarado claims that evidence discovered after the resolution of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion provides a basis for vacating his convictions. We
review de novo the district court’s denial of Villabona-Alvarado’s coram nobis
petition. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007). The
district court properly refused to hear Villabona-Alvarado’s repetitive petition
given that he presented no evidence of “manifest injustice or a change in law.”
Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Matus-Leva
v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A petitioner may not resort to
coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping
requirements.”). Moreover, Villabona-Alvarado’s claims fail to demonstrate an
error of “the most fundamental character.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d
591, 604 (9th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55477