Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cr-00282/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cr-00282-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Milton Mendoza
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MENDOZA,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cr-00282-HSG-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR 

RE-RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 77

On January 24, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Milton Mendoza’s motion to dismiss, 

based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Dkt. No. 

46. The Ninth Circuit then decided Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), and the

government moved the Court to reconsider its ruling. See Dkt. Nos. 47, 51. Because the Court 

found that Karingithi foreclosed the basis of its earlier order, the Court granted the government’s 

motion and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 64. Now, Defendant moves the 

Court to reconsider its order denying the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 77.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for re-reconsideration. The Court has carefully 

reviewed Defendant’s motion and sees no controlling change in law that merits reconsideration. 

This Court already considered, and declined to follow, the reasoning of courts in this district that 

agreed with Defendant’s argument, and there is no controlling authority on point. Ultimately, the 

Ninth Circuit (and perhaps the Supreme Court) will have to decide whether Pereira or any other 

authority compels the sweeping jurisdictional conclusion Defendant urges here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/19/2019 ______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cr-00282-HSG Document 78 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1