The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-56694•CLARENCE RUDOLPH ADOLPHUS, AKA Seal A v. United States of America
17-56694Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 22, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE RUDOLPH ADOLPHUS,
AKA Seal A,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-56694
D.C. Nos. 2:16-cv-08800-CAS
2:04-cr-00402-CAS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Rudolph Adolphus appeals 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th
Cir. 2007), we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 17-56694
Adolphus’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis raises several contentions
of error in connection with his 2007 guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to launder money. But Adolphus is
still in custody in connection with that conviction. See United States v. Monreal,
301 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner is in custody if he has not yet
completed his term of supervised release). “A person in custody may seek relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761
(9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Adolphus
cannot avail himself of coram nobis relief because he cannot show that a more
usual remedy is unavailable to attack his conviction. See id. at 760-61.
Adolphus’s motion to file a corrected opening brief and excerpts of record is
granted. The clerk will strike the brief at Docket Entry No. 19 and file the brief
and excerpts of record at Docket Entry No. 30.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.