MEMORANDUM **

Charles M. Woolsey 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 coram nobis petition de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

Woolsey challenges his 1974 guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the ground' that counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Because Woolsey has shown no valid reason for failing to attack his conviction earlier or an error “of the most fundamental character,” he is not entitled to a writ of error coram nobis, and the district court properly denied relief. See id. at 1005-06.

AFFIRMED.