Njai

MEMORANDUM **

Malick Njai appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We find that Njai unnecessarily delayed in challenging his conviction and affirm.

I.

The denial of a writ of error coram nobis is reviewed de novo. Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir.2002). To qualify for coram nobis relief, a petitioner must show that (1) a more usual *954 remedy is not available, (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier, (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III, and (4) the error is of the must fundamental character. Estate of McKinney v. United States, 71 F.3d 779, 781-82 (9th Cir.1995).

II.

A petition for writ of error coram nobis is not subject to a specific statute of limitations. Tel ink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th Cir.1994). In lieu of a specific statute of limitations, courts have required coram nobis petitioners to provide valid or sound reasons explaining why they did not earlier attack their sentences or convictions. United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir.2005). The law does not require…