United States v. Perez-Amaya
United States v. Perez-Amaya
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Filemon Perez-Amaya challenges the district court’s jurisdiction to sentence him for a violation of the terms of his supervised release. Because, under United States v. Vargas-Amaya,
The district court was under the mistaken impression that, because the mandate in Vargas-Amaya had not yet issued, the case was not precedential. It was.
There is no dispute that applying Vargas-Amaya necessitates reversal, remand, and a vacation of Perez-Amaya’s sentence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE SENTENCE. THE MANDATE SHALL ISSUE FORTHWITH.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. 389 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “a district court's jurisdiction to revoke supervised release can be extended beyond the term of supervision under [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(i) based on a warrant issued during the term of supervision, only if the warrant was issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” as required by the Fourth Amendment”).
. See Chambers v. United States, 22 F.3d 939, 942 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1994), vacated on other grounds by 47 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1995).
. See Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d at 907.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.