Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Renee Rose Duenas DIAZ, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-11
Citations: 138 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 04-10168
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Renee Rose Duenas DIAZ, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, HALL, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Renee Rose Duenas DIAZ, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-10168.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 11, 2005.
Decided July 11, 2005.
Marivic P. David, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Curtis C. Van de Veld, Esq., Van De Veld Shimizu Canto & Fisher, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: D.W. NELSON, HALL, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The United States appeals the district court's order dismissing an indictment of defendant Renee Rose Dueñas Diaz. The district court correctly held that mutual mistake of law does not invalidate a plea bargain. United States v. Barron, 172 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (9th Cir.1999). As the drafter of the agreement, the government bore the risk that changes in law would invalidate the underlying offense. Id. at 1161.
The government breached its agreement with Diaz because it agreed "not to prosecute defendant . for any other nonviolent offenses . known to the government or which [defendant] reveal[ed] to federal authorities." The government therefore by the terms of its agreement could not prosecute Diaz on different charges stemming from the conduct underlying the offense to which Diaz pled guilty. The district court was within its discretion to order the government to adhere to the terms of its agreement, and thus correctly dismissed the indictment. See United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 122 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.