USA V. MARIO VILLABONA-ALVARADO, No. 14-55477 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-55477 D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-05080-GHK 2:88-cr-00972-GHK v. MARIO ERNESTO VILLABONAALVARADO, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2015** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Mario Ernesto Villabona-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his convictions stemming from a 1990 trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291, and we affirm. Villabona-Alvarado claims that evidence discovered after the resolution of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion provides a basis for vacating his convictions. We review de novo the district court’s denial of Villabona-Alvarado’s coram nobis petition. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court properly refused to hear Villabona-Alvarado’s repetitive petition given that he presented no evidence of “manifest injustice or a change in law.” Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A petitioner may not resort to coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements.”). Moreover, Villabona-Alvarado’s claims fail to demonstrate an error of “the most fundamental character.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED. 2 14-55477

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.