United States v. David Chow

103 F.3d 141 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David CHOW, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-55084. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 2, 1996. * Decided Dec. 06, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Federal prisoner David Chow appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Chow contends that the district court erred when it determined that he could not challenge the validity of a prior state conviction in either a coram nobis petition or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2255, and affirm. 3 We review de novo questions of the district court's jurisdiction. See United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 762 (9th Cir.1995). 4 Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state convictions where the sentence is completely expired. See Maleng v.…