United States v. 2020-10-30 | 19-35674 | USA V. LAWRENCE WILSON | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE DOBY WILSON, AKA Amin
A. Rashid,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-35674

D.C. Nos. 3:13-cv-02099-MA
3:80-cr-00082-MA-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Lawrence Doby Wilson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and its order
denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a petition

*
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

OCT 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-35674
for a writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005
(9th Cir. 2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion,
see In re Tracht Gut, LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
Wilson contends that his 1980 conviction for interstate transportation of
fraudulently obtained funds must be vacated because: he is actually innocent of
that offense, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and his due process
rights were violated when an inaccurate record was provided to this court in a prior
appeal. To obtain coram nobis relief on these claims, Wilson must show, among
other requirements, that “valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction
earlier.” Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006. We agree with the district court that none of the
reasons Wilson proffers adequately justifies his delay in presenting his claims. The
district court, therefore, properly denied coram nobis relief and did not abuse its
discretion by denying Wilson’s Rule 60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED.