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. SATYEN C HATTER

J EE, AKA Sa

ty e n C hattopa dhy ay ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30087

D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00179-TSZ-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington T hom a s S. Zilly , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d June 8, 2017 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, C A LLAHAN, a

nd IKUTA, C i rc uit Judge s. Sa ty e n C hatte rje e (“ C hatte rje e ” ) a ppe a ls from

the Distric t C o urt’ s de nia l of his m otion to withdra

w his guilty

ple a and his m o tion for re c onside ra t ion of the



# F IL ED J UN 13 2017 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).de nia l of his m o tion to withdra w. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. 1 A de nia l of a m otion to withdra w a ple a is re vie we d for a

buse of disc re tion,
a s is a de n ia l of a

m otion for re c onside ra tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Mark , 795 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th C ir. 2015) (re c onside ra tion); Unite d State s v . Yamashiro , 788 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th C ir. 2015) (withdra wa l). A distric t c ourt a

buse s its disc re tion
e ithe r if it m ake s an e rror of la w or if its “ a

pplic a tion of thec orre c t le ga l sta nda rd
wa s (1) illogic a l, (2) im

pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be draw n from

the fa c t s in the re c ord.” Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). The Distric t C ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing C hatte rje e ’ s
m otion to withdra

w. Spe c ific a lly , the Distric t C ourt re a s ona bly c onc lude d tha

t C hatte rje e ’ s two a

rgum e nts in fa

vor of withdra

wa l— he did not e nte r into his ple a knowingly

and he wa s le ga l ly

innoc e nt— did not wa

rra nt re lie f. R e ga

rding the first
argum e nt, the e l e m e nts of wire fra u d we re se t forth both in the ple a a gre e m e nt a

nd
a t the ple a

he aring. Furthe r, a s the tra n sc ript from

the ple a he a ring re ve a ls, C hatte rje e , who is we ll e duc a te d, wa s a ske d m u ltiple que stions to de te rm ine

1 The fa c ts a

re fam ilia r to the pa rtie s a nd a re re s tate d

he re only a s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the le ga l issue s of the a ppe a l
. 2whe the r he wa s ple a ding knowingly and volunta

rily to the offe nse of wire fra ud,
and C hatte rje e gave no indic a tion tha t he wa s c onfuse d

a bout wha t he wa s ple a ding to or wha t his ple a e nta ile d. As a

re sult, the Distric t C ourt wa s justifie d in finding that C hatte rje e “ unde rstood e xa c tly what wa s ha ppe ning” whe n he ple a de d guilty
. The Distric t C ourt wa s a lso justifie d in re je c ting C hatte rje e ’ s c la im of innoc e nc e . In his ple a

a gre e m e nt, C h a tte rje e a dm itte d tha t he wa s guilty

of
c om m itting wirefra

ud. Additiona

lly , C hatte rje e a gre e d in his ple a a gre e m e nt, a s we ll a s at the ple a

he aring, tha

t he “ fa lse ly

re pre se nte d to [a

n inve stor] tha

t his funds would be u s e d for a m utua l fund” and tha

t he “ fa lse ly

re pre se n te d tha

t [the inve stor’ s] funds would not be c om m ingle d with othe r funds.” “ ‘ State m e nts m a de by a de fe nda

nt during a

guilty p le a

he aring c arry

a strong pre sum

ption of ve ra c ity in subse que nt proc e e dings a tta c king the ple a . ’ ” Yamashiro , 788 F.3d a t 1237 (quoting Unite d State

s v . Ross , 511 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th C i r. 2008)). Thus, the Distric t C ourt re a sona

bly disc ounte d C h atte rje e ’ s la te r prote sta

tion of innoc e nc e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Turne r , 898 F.2d 705, 713 (9th C ir. 1990) (sta ting tha t a de fe nda n t’ s “ unsupporte d

prote st [of innoc e nc e ] [i] s not a fa ir a nd just re a son for withdra wa l” ). The fa c t tha

t C hatte rje e a sse rts tha

t he inte n de d to re pa

y his vic tim s is of no c onse q

ue n c e , a s a de fe nda

nt’ s “ ‘ be lie f that [a ] vic t im will be re pa id a

nd will sustain no loss is no de fe nse a t a ll.’ ” Unite d State s v . Tre adw e ll , 593 F.3d
3990, 997 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Unite d State s v . Be nny , 786 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th C ir. 1986)). The Distric t C ourt a lso did not a buse its disc re t ion by de ny i ng C hatte rje e ’ s
m otion for re c onside ration. In this m otion, C h atte rje e argue d tha t he should be
a ble to withdra

w his ple a

be c a use his first a

ttorne y provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, he wa s innoc e nt, a nd the re would be an inc onsiste nc y be twe e n the fa c ts
a sse rte d in his ple a

a gre e m e nt a

nd the fa c ts tha

t the Distric t C o urt would find a t
se nte nc ing. None of the s e argum e nts a re pe rsua sive . C hatte rje e ’ s ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

wa s not a prope r ba sis for re c onside ra tion be c a use it
wa s not m a de in the m otion to withdra w, de spite e x isting prior to the filing of tha

t
m otion. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Lope z-C r uz , 730 F.3d 803, 811–12 (9th C ir. 2013). Furthe rm ore , C hatte rje e sta te d during his ple a

c olloquy tha t he wa s satisfie d with his c ounse l’ s re pre se ntation. Fina lly , the c la im fa ils on them e rits, a s a re vie w of the re c ord fa ils to show tha t C hatte rje e ’ s first a

ttorne y ’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt. Se e Stric k land v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). C hatte rje e ’ s re n e we d innoc e nc e c la i m a l so fa ils be c a

use the m otion for
re c o nside ra tion provide d no ne w fa c tua l or le g a l ba sis for the Distric t C ourt to
re vise its e arlie r de c ision. Additiona lly , the a l le ge d inc onsiste nc ie s tha t C hatte rje e prophe sie d a

re illusory , a s the Distric t C ourt’ s findings a t se nte nc ing did not
4c ontra dic t the fa c t ua l a sse rtions c onta ine d in the ple a a g re e m e nt or m a de a t the ple a he aring. Fina lly , the m anne r in whic h the Distric t C ourt dispose d of C hatte rje e ’ s
m otion for re c onside ration is not reve rsible e rror. Although the Distric t C ourt’ s e xpla nation for its denia l wa s brie f, it is c l e ar that it c onside re d C hatte rje e ’ s
m otion, a nd none of the a l le ge d ba se s for re c o nside ra tion wa rrante d re lie f. The re fore , unde r the se c irc um sta nc e s, we c annot sa

y that the Distric t

C ourt a buse d its disc re t ion. Ac c ordingly , the Distric t C ourt is AFFIRM E D.

5