United States v. Dearing

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40572
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES DANIEL DEARING, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(9:01-CR-8-1)
December 31, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Daniel Dearing, Jr., appeals the revocation of his
term of supervised release, received for violating 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (possession with intent to distribute
approximately 327 kilograms of marijuana).
Dearing contends the district court lacked jurisdiction to
revoke his supervised release. Questions of jurisdiction are
reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Alvarado, 201 F.3d 379,
381 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court’s jurisdiction “extends

-- 1 of 2 --

beyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any
period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising
before its expiration” if, as here, a warrant or summons is issued
before expiration. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) (emphasis added). Dearing
asserts his revocation hearing was held subsequent to the
“reasonably necessary” period.
The total delay was approximately 13 months. On similar
facts, our court held recently that a delay of almost three years
did not result in a loss of jurisdiction. United States
v. Naranjo, 259 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
1163 (2002). On this record, the district court retained
jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --