N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HARLES C HESTER

C HATM AN III, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-16571

D.C . Nos. 3:16-c v-02550-C RB

3:14-c r-00552-C RB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 12, 2018 ** B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C LIFTON, a n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l prisone r C ha

rle s C he ste r C hatm an, III, a ppe a l s from

the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his 28 U.S.C
. § 2255 m otion to va c a te his se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253. Re vie wing de novo, se eUnite d State s v . Re v e s , 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th C ir. 2014), we a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED J UN 15 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).In his se c tion 2255 motion, C hatm an a rgue d tha t, in light of J

ohnson v
. Unite d State s , 135 S. C t. 2551 (2015), his C a l ifornia c onvic tion for inflic ting
c orpora l injury

on a spouse or c oha

bita n t is no longer a c rim e of viole nc e for purpose s of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3). The distric t c ourt de nie d this c la im c iting Be c k le s v . Unite d State

s , 137 S. C t. 886 (2017), whic h, a s C hatm a n c onc e de s, fore c lose s this a

rgum e nt. On a

ppe a l, C hatm a

n c onte nds tha

t the gove rnm e n t’ s pre Be c k le s c onc e ssion tha

t J ohnson ’ s holding a

pplie s to the Guide line s ste e re d him
away from ra ising thea dditiona l a

rgum e n t tha

t he is a c tua lly

innoc e nt of the
se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt. He furthe r argue s tha t the distric t c ourt’ s a lle ge d ly pre m a ture dism issa l of his se c tion 2255 motion pre ve nte d him from de ve loping that a lte rna tive argum e nt. To the e xte nt the gove rnm e nt c onc e de d tha t J ohnson ’ s holding a

pplie s to the Guide line s, ne ithe r the distric t c ourt nor this c ourt is bound by tha t c onc e ssion. Se e Unite d State

s v . Ogle s , 440 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ) (“ W e are not bound by

a pa rty ’ s c onc e ssion a s to the m e aning of thela w[.] ” ). W e disa gre e with C hatm an tha

t his c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s proc e s sing of his se c tion 2255 m otion is e nc om

pa sse d within the

c e rtific a te of a

ppe a la bility and tre a t his brie fing of this issue

a s a m otion to e xpa

nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility . So

1 7
- 1 6 5 7 1 2tre a te d, the m otion is denie d. Se e 9th C ir. R . 22-1(e ); Hiiv ala v . W ood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th C ir. 1999). C hatm an’ s c la im

tha t the distric t c ourt m isa

ppre he nde d tha

t the sta te c ourt would im pose a c onc urre nt se nte nc e la c ks m e rit. The m e re hope tha t the sta te
c ourt would c onside r the le ngth of C hatm a n ’ s fe de ra l se nte nc e is not a ba sis for
re lie f be c a

u se se c t ion 2255 doe s not e xte nd to “ c la im s ba se d not on a ny obje c tive ly
a sc e rta i na ble e rror but on thefrustrat ion of the subje c t ive inte n t of the se n te nc ing judge
. ” U

nite d State s v . Addonizio , 442 U.S. 178, 187 (1979). AFFIRM E D.

1 7
- 1 6 5 7 1 3