N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JEFFER SON B UNING,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16198 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01176-APG-VC F M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d R OSENTHAL, *** C hie f Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED DEC 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Le e H. R ose ntha l, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te x a s, sitting by de signa tion.B uning a ppe a ls the dism issa l of his a c tion for fa ilure to tim e ly e ffe c t se rvic e of proc e ss, a s re q

uire d by Fe de ra l R

ule of C i vil Proc e dure 4(i), (m ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing the a c tion, be c a use B uning fa ile d to tim e ly se rve the Unite d State s attorne y for the Distric t of Ne va da . Se e Fe d. R . of C iv. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i), (m). B uning did not e sta blish good c a use or e xc u sa

ble ne gle c t

for his fa ilure to pe rfe c t se rvic e of proc e ss a s re quire d. Se e Le mogev . Unite d State s , 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th C ir. 2009). B uning a rgue s e ithe r that (1) he wa s e xc u se d for se rvic e of proc e ss unde r R ule 4 be c a

use 8 C .F.R . § 336.9(b) c ontrolle d or, e ve n if it did not, (2) he e sta blishe d good c a

use for fa iling to c o m

ply with R ule 4, be c a

use § 336.9(b) c re ate d am

b iguity with re ga rd to se rvic e of proc e ss. Ne ithe r argum e nt is pe rsua sive . First, to thee xte nt tha

t B uning ha s not wa i ve d the se argum e nts, be c a use he fa ile d to provide “ any

an a ly sis to a ssist thec ourt in e va luating [his] le g a l c ha lle nge ,” se e Inde

p. Tow e rs of W

ash. v . W ashington , 350 F.3d 925, 929-30 (9th C ir. 2003), the re is no c onflic t be twe e n R ule 4 a nd 8 C .F.R . § 336.9(b). Se c tion 336.9(b) m e re ly

inform s the a

pplic ant whic h a ge nc ie s m ust be se rve d unde r R

ule 4(i)(1)(C ). Se c ond, e ve n if the re we re an am biguity , B uning wa s a

ware of the 2re quire m e nts of R ule 4 whe n he m ove d unde r R ule 4(m ) for a dditional tim e to se rve the Se c re ta

ry of the De p artm e nt of Hom e la nd Se c urity . Se e W

halev . Unite d State s , 792 F.2d 951, 953 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ W e know of no c a se s in whic h c ounse l’ s fa ilure to re a d R ule 4 a nd c ounse l’ s re s ulting ‘ a ssum ption’ tha t m a il se rvic e wa s va lid we re he ld to c onstitute ‘ g ood c a use ’ or ‘ justifia

ble e xc use .’ ” ). M ore o ve r, B uning still fa i le d to e ffe c t se rvic e in the a dditional tim e grante d by the distric t c o urt. Ac c ordingly , we c annot find good c a use or e xc usa

ble ne gle c t. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 B e c a u se we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l unde r R ule 4(m ), we ne e d not a ddre ss B uning’ s a dditional a rgum e nts on a

ppe a l. 3