UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Doby WILSON, aka Amin A. Rashid, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: October 30, 2020
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Paul T. Maloney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Suzanne Miles, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee Lawrence Doby Wilson, Pro Se
Federal prisoner Lawrence Doby Wilson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and its order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, see In re Tracht Gut, LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
Wilson contends that his 1980 conviction for interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained funds must be vacated because: he is actually innocent of that offense, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and his due process rights were violated when an inaccurate record was provided to this court in a prior appeal. To obtain coram nobis relief on these claims, Wilson must show, among other requirements, that “valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier.” Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006. We agree with the district court that none of the reasons Wilson proffers adequately justifies his delay in presenting his claims. The district court, therefore, properly denied coram nobis relief and did not abuse its discretion by denying Wilson's Rule 60(b) motion.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.