USA v. Estrella-Molina, No. 07-16706 (9th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 16 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 07-16706 D.C. Nos. CV-07-00250-DCB CR-74-00233-DCB v. JORGE ALBERT ESTRELLA-MOLINA, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 3, 2009 San Francisco, California Before: HUG, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Jorge Albert Estrella-Molina appeals the district court s denial of his Motion to Clarify Sentence, or in the Alternative, Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Judgment as well as the district court s denial of his motion to reconsider. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Judge Marquez s decision makes no mention of the Federal Youth Corrections Act provision for discharging an offender s probation. Therefore, the district court s finding that Judge Marquez did not intend to set aside EstrellaMolina s conviction was not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not err by denying Estrella-Molina s motion to clarify his sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Dickie, 752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). The district court also did not err in denying Estrella-Molina s petition for a writ of coram nobis. To warrant issuance of the writ, an error must have been of the most fundamental character. United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2007). In reviewing a district court s denial of the writ, findings of fact must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 594 (9th Cir. 1987). As stated above, the district court did not err in finding that Judge Marquez did not intend to set aside Estrella-Molina s conviction. Therefore, Estrella-Molina has not identified any error, let alone an error of the most fundamental character. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
