United States v. John Zentmyer , 669 F. App'x 431 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-56108
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00337-DSF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN HOBART ZENTMYER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner John Hobart Zentmyer 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. We review de novo a district court’s
denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis, see Matus-Leva v. United States,
*
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).
287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
Zentmyer contends that the district court violated his due process rights by
denying his petition sua sponte after the government had defaulted by failing to file
a timely response. We need not determine whether the district court erred in this
regard because the record shows that Zentmyer is ineligible for coram nobis relief.
See id. (“We may affirm on any ground finding support in the record.”). The
district court correctly concluded that Zentmyer has not shown that valid reasons
exist for not attacking the conviction earlier or that “the error is of a fundamental
character.” See id. (listing requirements for coram nobis relief).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-56108