NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SUNDEEP DHAR

NI, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-16438

D.C . Nos. 2:10-c v-02934-EJG

2:05-c r-00306-EJG Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Sa c ram e nto ORDER B e fore : WALLAC E, FISHER , and B ER Z O N, C i rc uit Judge s. (1) The Joint M otion to Dism i ss a nd R e m and to Distric t C ourt a nd Joint Stat us R e port a

re c o nstrue d a s a

joint motion for sum

m ary re ve rsa l of the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of re l ie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255. (2) The joint motion for sum m ary re ve rsa l, so c onstrue d, is gra nte d in the inte re s ts of justic e . Se e Bac a v . Adams , 777 F.3d 1034 (9th C ir. 2015). The distric t c o urt sha ll e nte r judgm e nt va c ating Dha rni’ s c onvic tions. 28 U.S.C . § 2255. W e e xpre ss no vie wa s to the a lle ge d c onstitutiona l infirm ity

of Dha rni’ s c onvic tion. C

f . Unite d State

s v . Hoc k , 172 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th C ir. 1999) (holding tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly c onstrue d the pa

rtie s’ stipula

tion tha t the 

# FIL ED OCT 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSde fe nda

n t’ s c onvic tion wa s de fe c tive a s a § 2255 m o tion a

n d prope rly

grante d the m otion). (3) This m atte r is re m ande d for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. If the

pa rtie s re a c h a

ne w ple a a gre e m e nt unde r Fe d. R . C rim . P. 11(c )(1)(C ), the distric t

c o urt should e ithe r a c c e pt the pa rtie s ’ ne wple a

a gre e m e nt and se n te nc e Dha

rni in a c c orda

nc e the re with or re

je c t tha t ple a a gre e m e nt a

nd proc e e d a c c ordingly . SO O RDE RE D. T H E M ANDAT E SH AL L ISSUE FO RT H W I T H .USA v

DH A R NI 11-16438 W ALLAC E , J., disse nting I disse nt from

this Orde r for the sa

m e re a sons I dissente d from the m a jority ’ s orde r re quiring to the

pa rtie s to show c a

use . As I e xpla ine d

the re , we should now re insta te our prior opinion, U

nite d State

s v . Dharni , 738 F.3d 1186, re h’g grante d and opinion v

ac a te d , 757 F.3d 1002 (9th C ir. 2014), be c a u se Dha rni ha s stipula

te d that he c annot e sta

blish tha t the fa c ts a ssum e d

in our original opinion were wrong. That stipula

tion fore c lose s him

from c arry i ng his burde n of e sta blishing a Sixth Am e ndm e nt viola

tion. B e c a

use he ha s fa ile d to c arry

his burde n, the distric t c ourt did not e rr in de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2255 m otion. I disa gre e with them a

j ority tha t we have powe r to re c onstrue the pa rtie s’ filings a s a

joint motion for sum

m ary re v e rsa l. While the m a

jority be lie ve s tha

t the

“ inte re sts of justic e ” support doing so, tha t be lie f c annot ove rc om e the fa c t tha t the pa rtie s ne ve r a c tua lly

file d a ny suc h m otion. M o re ove r, the gove rnm e nt ha s e xpre s sly disc la i m e d a

ny c onfe ssion of e rror. Ac c ordingly , I se e no ba sis for orde ring the distric t c ourt to va c ate Dha rni’ s c onvic tions. I re spe c t fully disse nt. 

# FIL ED OCT 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS