IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 18, 2008
No. 07-40332
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LUIS ENRIQUE LOPEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:07-CR-34-ALL
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Enrique Lopez violated the conditions of his term of supervised
release, imposed on him by the district court for the Southern District of
Mississippi in 2003, by returning to the United States illegally. After it executed
an acceptance of a transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605, the
district court for the Southern District of Texas revoked Lopez’s term of
supervised release and sentenced him to serve 24 months in prison, with that
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 07-40332
term to run consecutively to his new illegal reentry sentence of 41 months of
imprisonment.
Lopez appeals the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that
the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because the order transferring
jurisdiction had not been signed by a judge of the Southern District of
Mississippi, the transferring court. At no time during the district court
proceedings did Lopez dispute the authenticity of the transfer document or object
to having the revocation action heard in Texas or otherwise challenge the
revocation proceedings.
We ordered a limited remand to the district court for the purpose of taking
such further action as needed to determine whether clerical error was the reason
for the transfer order’s omission of the signature of the judge of the transferring
court. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36 (a district court may “correct an error in the
record arising from oversight or omission” at any time). Based on documentation
produced by the transferring court and entered into evidence without objection,
the district court determined that the transferring court had electronically
signed the transfer order prior to any action being taken on the motion to revoke.
Consequently, the district court had jurisdiction to revoke Lopez’s term of
supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
2