United States of America v. Lawanda Johnson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAWANDA JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-35715
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-05703-DGE-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner Lawanda Johnson appeals pro se from the district
court’s orders denying her petition for a writ of error coram nobis and motions for
reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
* 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), and we therefore deny
Johnson’s request for oral argument.
FILED
SEP 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-35715
affirm.
We agree with the district court that none of Johnson’s claims entitles her to
coram nobis relief. See id. at 1006 (stating requirements for coram nobis relief).
First, Johnson’s claims regarding a prosecution witness and a change in federal
regulations do not establish an error of the most fundamental character. Second,
Johnson has not demonstrated a valid reason for not raising earlier her claim
regarding the government’s alleged failure to provide relevant documents. Lastly,
Johnson has not established an error of the most fundamental character or a valid
reason for failing to raise the claims earlier with respect to her claims that the
government’s closing argument impermissibly referred to a statement from a
witness who did not testify, and that she could not intend to commit health care
fraud because one of her clinics was certified as a rural health clinic.
Furthermore, the district court did not err by deciding Johnson’s petition
without an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively shows that Johnson
is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); 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.”).
We do not address Johnson’s remaining arguments for coram nobis relief
because they were not properly presented to the district court. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court generally will not review

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-35715
issues raised for the first time on appeal); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504,
507 (9th Cir. 1994) (claim for relief is not properly raised before the district court
if it is not made in the principal motion, and such a claim is therefore “not
cognizable on appeal”).
Appellant’s motions for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --