United States Sixth Circuit

Sentence imposed pursuant to the revocation of a supervised release term is affirmed over defendant's argument that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee lacked jurisdiction to penalize him for violations of the term of supervised release since by granting the Government's Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence, the Florida district court that imposed the original terms of the supervised release had eliminated the term of supervised release by failing to restate the supervised release term of the original sentence in its order granting the motion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/12/2009
• Published 01/12/2009

Judges

• Before: KENNEDY, SUTTON, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Robert H. Dietrick, Duane Morris, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.  Christopher D. Poole, Assistant United States Attorney, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Robert H. Dietrick, Duane Morris, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.  Christopher D. Poole, Assistant United States Attorney, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee.