MEMORANDUM **

Daniel M. Davis 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. We review the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

Davis challenges his 2002 guilty-plea conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Because Davis has not shown valid reasons for failing to attack the conviction earlier or an error “of the most fundamental character,” he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis, and the district court properly denied relief. See id. at 1006-07.

AFFIRMED.