United States Ninth Circuit

The district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss which challenged the district court's jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release after the term had expired, is affirmed, where: 1) the delay in adjudicating the charges was "reasonably necessary;" and therefore, 2) the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant's 2003 supervised release violations.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/13/2014
• Published 03/13/2014

Judges

• IKUTA

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel