NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3994 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-01609-MSB-1 v.

MEMORANDUM*

DANIEL RIVERA-ANAYA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael S. Berg, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 17, 2025

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.

* 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). 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