United States v. Hunter
This text of 256 F. App'x 121 (United States v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Nigel Hunter appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised [122]*122release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hunter contends that his supervised release should not have been revoked because he attended a drug and alcohol relapse program at the direction of his probation officer, after his admitted use of alcohol. This argument fails because attending a treatment program after a supervised release violation does not preclude a subsequent revocation petition based upon that violation. See United States v. Shampang, 987 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir.1993). Moreover, there is no indication that Hunter was misled or promised that supervised release would not be revoked if he attended the treatment program. Id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
256 F. App'x 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hunter-ca9-2007.