United States v. Randy George

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-17254
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:01-cr-00326-MMC
v.
RANDY GEORGE, a.k.a. Randolph MEMORANDUM*
George,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Randy George appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
petition for a writ of error coram nobis and motion for reconsideration. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see United States v.
Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
*
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).
George seeks to vacate his 2002 conviction for making and subscribing false
tax returns and willful failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7203,
7206(1). He contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview
and subpoena Harry Gordon Oliver II, a tax professional, who would have
supported George’s good faith reliance defense. The district court properly denied
coram nobis relief because George has not shown an error of the most fundamental
character. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006. Although the record reflects that tax
professionals advised George how to report his receivership fees, it does not show
that George ever reported those fees on any return in accordance with their advice.
Contrary to George’s assertion, the evidence submitted in support of his coram
nobis petition fails to demonstrate that he relied on the tax professionals’ advice.
Accordingly, George has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for
trial counsel’s alleged error, the result of his jury trial would have been different.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
Furthermore, the record reflects that George is ineligible for coram nobis
relief because he has failed to demonstrate any valid reason for not attacking his
conviction earlier. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006-07; see also Matus-Leva v. United
States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We may affirm on any ground finding
support in the record.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17254