United States v. Clifton Cloyd

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 17, 2018
• Docket: 17-2748
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 17-2748 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Clifton Cloyd, also known as Clifton Omar, also known as Omar Muhamed

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: May 14, 2018 Filed: May 17, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Cloyd, proceeding pro se, directly appeals the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the district court’s1 jurisdiction. We conclude that the

1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. district court had jurisdiction to revoke Cloyd’s supervised release because his term of supervised release had not expired when the court issued the revocation warrant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i); United States v. Hacker, 450 F.3d 808, 814-15 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review; finding that district court had jurisdiction to revoke supervised release where revocation warrant was issued one day before supervised-release term expired); see also United States v. Merlino, 785 F.3d 79, 87 n.5 (3d Cir. 2015) (noting that issuance of warrant, even if not executed or served prior to expiration of release, satisfies § 3583(i)).

The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________

-2-