United States of America v. Donnie Lee Jones

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONNIE LEE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50659
D.C. No. 8:97-cr-00093-AHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Donnie Lee Jones appeals from the revocation of his supervised release. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
On appeal, Jones challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
expand the appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. Jones seeks to
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50659 2
collaterally attack the validity of his underlying conviction in order to develop a
defense to the revocation of his supervised release. Jones’ collateral challenge to
his conviction, which we have previously considered and rejected, is not
cognizable in this appeal. “Irrespective of the merits of this claim, an appeal from
a probation revocation is not the proper avenue for a collateral attack on the
underlying conviction.” See United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.
1987).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --