Case Information
*1 Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Rivera- Anaya 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. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Riedl , 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), we affirm.
*2 In his petition, Rivera-Anaya argued that his attorney was ineffective for failing to mail him the plea agreement and then coercing him into pleading guilty. We agree with the district court that Rivera-Anaya is not entitled to coram nobis relief with respect to this claim because he failed to establish an error of the most fundamental character. See id . at 1006 (stating requirements for coram nobis relief). At the change of plea hearing, Rivera-Anaya and his counsel confirmed that counsel had read the plea agreement to him, and Rivera-Anaya stated that he understood its terms and had no questions. He also stated that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation, and had not been threatened or received any promises beyond what was in the plea agreement. These sworn statements “carry a strong presumption of veracity. ” United States v. Ross , 511 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 2008). Rivera- Anaya’s current assertions, which are unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence in the record, fail to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Lee v. United States , 582 U.S. 357, 369 (2017).
Rivera- Anaya’s remaining contentions regarding alleged errors by the district court in adjudicating his coram nobis petition do not support relief.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-3994
[*] 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).