NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3676 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:09-cr-05703-DGE-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ANTOINE DOUGLASS JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2025** Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Antoine Douglass Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motions seeking relief from that order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

We agree with the district court that Johnson is not entitled to coram nobis relief. See id. at 1006 (stating requirements for coram nobis relief). As to the claims that were properly presented to the district court, Johnson did not establish either a valid reason for failing to attack his conviction earlier or an error of the most fundamental character. Furthermore, Johnson has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for reconsideration and motions for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e). See Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004).

We do not address Johnson’s arguments for coram nobis relief that were not properly presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal); Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 1994) (claim for relief is not properly raised before the district court if it is not made in the principal motion or petition; such a claim is not cognizable on appeal).

Johnson’s motion to strike is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-3676