USA V. TIMOTHY CARLSON, No. 18-35157 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35157 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00072-JLQ v. MEMORANDUM* TIMOTHY JOSEPH CARLSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Timothy Joseph Carlson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a coram nobis * 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). petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court correctly denied Carlson’s petition. Carlson is still in custody and, therefore, cannot show that a more usual remedy is unavailable to attack his conviction. See id. at 761 (“A person in custody may seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because the more usual remedy of a habeas petition is available, the writ of error coram nobis is not.” (footnote omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35157

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.