`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`United States of America,
`
`
` Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Lonnie Lillard,
` Defendant
`
`Case No. 2:06-cr-00291-CDS-LRL
`
`Order Denying Certificate of Appealability
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Lonnie Lillard petitioned for writ of error coram nobis or motion to vacate
`
`11
`
`judgment. Pet., ECF No. 317. Finding that Lillard failed to meet the requirements of bringing a
`
`12
`
`13
`
`successful coram nobis claim, I denied his petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 Order, ECF No.
`
`327. Lillard has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit. Appeal, ECF No. 328. Although
`
`14
`
`Lillard brought his claims in a coram nobis petition, a certificate of appealability is required
`
`15
`
`where a petition attacks the petitioner’s conviction or sentence. ECF No. 330 (citing Porter v.
`
`16
`
`Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th. Cir. 2001)).
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue only when the
`
`petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” With respect
`
`to claims rejected on the merits, a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
`
`20
`
`the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
`
`21
`
`529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Applying these standards, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability
`
`22
`
`because reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable or wrong.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cristina D. Silva
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`1 An inmate still in custody may not apply for coram nobis relief because the more usual remedy of a habeas
`petition is still available. Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
