USA V. KENNETH MCNEIL, No. 13-15020 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 27 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-15020 D.C. Nos. 1:10-cv-00275-ALA 1:02-cr-00547-ALA v. KENNETH CHARLES McNEIL, a.k.a. Chip, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 18, 2014*** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Former federal prisoner Kenneth Charles McNeil appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Ann L. Aiken, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. McNeil challenges his 2004 jury-trial conviction, alleging that the government introduced irrelevant evidence at trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 402 and due process, and that the government withheld its theory of the case, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The district court properly denied McNeil coram nobis relief because he has not demonstrated any valid reason for not attacking his conviction earlier or that any alleged error was of the most fundamental character. See id. at 1006-07. McNeil s contention that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) (evidentiary hearing is not warranted when the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief ); United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 573 n.25 (9th Cir. 1981) ( Whether a hearing is required on a coram nobis motion should be resolved in the same manner as habeas corpus petitions. ). AFFIRMED. 2 13-15020
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.
