22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T522,MEMORANDUM Mario Ernesto Villabona-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his convictions stemming from a 1990 trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Villabona-Alvarado claims that evidence discovered after the resolution of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion provides a basis for vacating his convictions. We review de novo the district court’s denial of Villabo-na-Alvarado’s coram nobis petition. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007). The district court properly refused to hear Villabona-Alvarado’s repetitive petition given that he presented no evidence of “manifest injustice or a change in law.” Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1976); see also Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir.2002) (“A petitioner may not resort to coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements.”). Moreover, Villabona-Al-varado’s claims fail to demonstrate an error of “the most fundamental character.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir.1987). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54f,

MEMORANDUM

Mario Ernesto Villabona-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his convictions stemming from a 1990 trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Villabona-Alvarado claims that evidence discovered after the resolution of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion provides a basis for vacating his convictions. We review de novo the district court’s denial of Villabo-na-Alvarado’s coram nobis petition. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007). The district court properly refused to hear Villabona-Alvarado’s repetitive petition given that he presented no evidence of “manifest injustice or a change in law.” Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1976); see also Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir.2002) (“A petitioner may not resort to coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements.”). Moreover, Villabona-Al-varado’s claims fail to demonstrate an error of “the most fundamental character.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.