UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41164
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
ANTONIO JIMENEZ-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
July 6, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Jimenez-Martinez appeals the district court’s
revocation of supervised release and the imposition of a ten month
sentence of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We AFFIRM.
I. FACTS
After being indicted in June, 1990, Jimenez pleaded guilty to
one count of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In October, 1990, the district
court sentenced Jimenez to a three-year term of supervised release.
On September 24, 1991, while on supervised release, Jimenez was
found guilty of violating the terms of his supervised release for
using drugs. The district court sentenced Jimenez to a three-year
term of supervised release. Thus, Jimenez’s supervised release
term was due to expire on September 23, 1994.
On August 10, 1992, a petition was filed alleging that Jimenez
tested positive for cocaine use in July, 1992. On August 13, 1992,
Jimenez was advised via telephone that the United States Marshal
Service would be serving him with a summons to appear at an initial
hearing before a Magistrate Judge on August 26, 1992 and further
that he would be required to appear at a revocation proceeding
before the district court on September 9, 1992. The day before the
initial hearing, a probation officer visited Jimenez’s last known
address and found the house to be vacant. Jimenez did not appear
at the initial hearing and the district court issued a warrant for
Jimenez’s arrest on September 2, 1992.
On July 21, 1998, the warrant for Jimenez’s arrest was
executed when he was found by the Coast Guard on a shrimp boat off
the coast of Texas. At a revocation hearing shortly following
Jimenez’s arrest, the district court revoked Jimenez’s term of
supervised release and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Jimenez argues that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release and sentence him to
prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 because the supervisory period had
2
expired by the time the revocation hearing was held. The only
issue on appeal is a question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a
question of law subject to de novo review. See United States v.
Lynch, 114 F.3d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1997). We hold that the district
court had jurisdiction to revoke Jimenez’s term of supervised
release.
This Court has not addressed whether the district court has
jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release where the
arrest warrant was issued during the term but the revocation
hearing was not held until after the term expired. We must begin
with the statute in question and interpret the statute in
accordance with the plain meaning of its words. See United States
v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). The plain
language of 18 U.S.C. § 3853(e)(3) provides that the district court
may:
revoke a term of supervised release, and require the
person to serve in prison all or part of the term of
supervised release without credit for time previously
served on post-release supervision, if it finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the person violated a
condition of supervised release, pursuant to the
provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
that are applicable to probation revocation....
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
Although Section 3853(e)(3) is silent as to whether the power
to revoke supervised release terminates at the end of the
supervisory period, the plain language of the statute allows for a
reasonable period of continued jurisdiction by reference to the
“Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that are applicable to
probation revocation....” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
3
32.1(a)(2) provides for a hearing “within a reasonable time” when
a court is considering revocation or supervised release. Under the
plain language of the statute and Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32.1(a)(2), the district court could exercise
jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release and sentence an
individual to prison when an arrest warrant was issued during the
term but the revocation hearing was not held until after the term
expired. This holding is consistent with other circuits
considering the issue. See United States v. Barton, 26 F.3d 490
(4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992 (9th Cir.
1993). See also United States v. Morales, 45 F.3d 693 (2d Cir.
1995) (affirming district court’s jurisdiction to modify a term of
supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) after date of
supervised release was scheduled to expire).
The district court could also lose jurisdiction over persons
whose actions or inactions frustrated the execution of an arrest
warrant prior to the end of the supervision term. Similarly, “[i]f
the district court lost jurisdiction upon the lapse of the term of
supervised release, persons who violated the conditions of their
release near the end of the supervisory period would be immune to
revocation.” See Barton, 26 F.3d at 492. Clearly, the district
court’s jurisdiction to revoke supervised release extends for a
reasonable time beyond the end of the supervisory term.
Jimenez’s contention that holding a revocation hearing nearly
six years after the issuance of the warrant is fundamentally unfair
and violates his right to due process is without merit. Jimenez
4
frustrated the execution of the arrest warrant when he absconded.
Jimenez knew that he had violated his the terms of his supervised
release by using drugs and not reporting a new address to his
probation officer. He knew that he faced revocation and failed to
show for his initial appearance before a magistrate judge.
Jimenez’s probation officer attempted to locate him at his home
address and found that he had moved without reporting an address
change. Further, the United States Marshal’s Service made numerous
attempts to locate Jimenez by searching utility and school district
records, contacting family members, and conducting NCIC checks.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order revoking
Jimenez’s supervised release and imposing a 10 month sentence is
AFFIRMED.
5