OPINION

Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta appeals an order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having dealt with near-identical appeals from Ledesma-Cuesta in the recent past, we will summary affirm for substantially the same reasons discussed in our August 2012 opinion. See United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 Fed.Appx. 412, 412 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonpre-cedential per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. To the extent that Ledesma-Cuesta relies on Kessack v. United States, No. C05-1828Z, 2008 WL 189679, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7739 (W.D.Wash. Jan. 18, 2008), we have previously declined to follow that case, and the Ninth Circuit has explicitly rejected its outcome. See United States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that Kessack is “contrary to the law of [the Ninth] Circuit”); Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).