In United States v. Estrada, --- F.4th ---, No. 23-50012 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the third revocation of Carlos Armando Estrada’s supervised release.
On appeal, Estrada argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release because, at the time of his third violation, he was serving a term of supervised release that exceeded the applicable statutory maximum.
The Court rejected this argument, concluding: "Estrada was serving a term of supervised release when he committed the instant violation. This is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the district court. Thus, regardless of any error in the sentence imposed on his second revocation—an issue we do not decide—the district court had jurisdiction over proceedings on the third revocation of Estrada’s supervised release."
"As we have indicated, we decline to reach Estrada’s argument that the term of supervised release imposed on his previous revocation of supervised release exceeded the statutory maximum. Consistent with Castro-Verdugo and our earlier precedent, we hold that an appeal challenging a supervised release revocation is not the 'proper avenue' through which to attack the validity of the underlying sentence."
