USA V. CHARLES CHATMAN, III, No. 17-16571 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 15 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-16571 D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-02550-CRB 3:14-cr-00552-CRB v. CHARLES CHESTER CHATMAN III, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Charles Chester Chatman, III, appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). In his section 2255 motion, Chatman argued that, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), his California conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant is no longer a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3). The district court denied this claim citing Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), which, as Chatman concedes, forecloses this argument. On appeal, Chatman contends that the government’s preBeckles concession that Johnson’s holding applies to the Guidelines steered him away from raising the additional argument that he is actually innocent of the sentencing enhancement. He further argues that the district court’s allegedly premature dismissal of his section 2255 motion prevented him from developing that alternative argument. To the extent the government conceded that Johnson’s holding applies to the Guidelines, neither the district court nor this court is bound by that concession. See United States v. Ogles, 440 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“We are not bound by a party’s concession as to the meaning of the law[.]”). We disagree with Chatman that his challenge to the district court’s processing of his section 2255 motion is encompassed within the certificate of appealability and treat his briefing of this issue as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So 2 17-16571 treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). Chatman’s claim that the district court misapprehended that the state court would impose a concurrent sentence lacks merit. The mere hope that the state court would consider the length of Chatman’s federal sentence is not a basis for relief because section 2255 does not extend to “claims based not on any objectively ascertainable error but on the frustration of the subjective intent of the sentencing judge.” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 187 (1979). AFFIRMED. 3 17-16571
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
