In United States v. Cate, --- F.3d ---, No. 19-30161 (9th Cir. 2020), the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence on revocation of supervised release. It held the validity of an underlying conviction cannot be challenged in a supervised release revocation proceeding; the underlying conviction can only be collaterally attacked in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The facts:
- "Ryan Cate, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), was charged with violating the conditions of his supervised release. He moved to terminate supervised release on the ground that a change in the law meant that his underlying state offense was no longer a felony."
- "Cate filed a motion to terminate his supervised release, arguing that he was innocent of the felon-in-possession charge because the actual maximum term of imprisonment for his underlying offense was only three months, which meant that the state offense was not a felony."
- "The district court denied Cate’s motion, explaining that . . . [it] could not simply declare Cate factually innocent. Instead, the court reasoned that the proper procedure would be for Cate to collaterally attack the validity of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255."
The Ninth Circuit agreed:
- "[A] supervised release revocation proceeding [] is not a proper forum in which to challenge an underlying conviction."
- "Just as § 3583(e) does not authorize a district court to modify or rescind an allegedly illegal condition, it does not authorize a district court to vacate an allegedly illegal conviction. Instead, the underlying conviction must be collaterally attacked in a proceeding under § 2255, not in a supervised release revocation proceeding."
The Court also determined the sentence was reasonable.
