UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David C. JACQUOT, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: December 10, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
W. Mark Conover, I, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Joanna Moriah Curtis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Michael L. Crowley, Attorney, Crowley Law Group, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
David C. Jacquot appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for transfer of his supervised release to the District of Idaho. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
A district court has discretion whether to transfer to another district jurisdiction over a person on supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605. See United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d 857, 858-59 (9th Cir. 1994). The district court's conclusion that its familiarity with the facts of Jacquot's case counseled against transfer here was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Thus, the district court reasonably exercised its discretion to deny transfer. Moreover, Jacquot has not shown that the district court's denial deprived him of access to the court; Jacquot's assertion that he will not be able to litigate effectively in the Southern District of California a yet-to-be-filed motion for early termination of supervision is entirely speculative.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.