United States v. Taylor

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Taylor

32 F. App'x 466

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 2002

DocketNo. 00-30369; D.C. No. CR-00-00338-RSL

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 466 (United States v. Taylor) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Taylor, 32 F. App'x 466 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Taylor argues that he never received an evidentiary hearing before a district judge in connection with the government’s motion to revoke his supervised release. We reject this argument. At Taylor’s final revocation hearing on October 17, 2000 before Judge Lasnik, Taylor was given the opportunity to introduce additional evidence (which he did); conduct further cross-examination of witnesses who testified before the magistrate judge (which he did not); and testify on his own behalf (which he decided against). We therefore hold that Taylor had a full and fair hearing on the revocation of supervised release before a District Judge and AFFIRM the decision below.

AFFIRMED.

phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

***

Taylor argues that he never received an evidentiary hearing before a district judge in connection with the government’s motion to revoke his supervised release. We reject this argument. At Taylor’s final revocation hearing on October 17, 2000 before Judge Lasnik, Taylor was given the opportunity to introduce additional evidence (which he did); conduct further cross-examination of witnesses who testified before the magistrate judge (which he did not); and testify on his own behalf (which he decided against). We therefore hold that Taylor had a full and fair hearing on the revocation of supervised release before a District Judge and AFFIRM the decision below.

AFFIRMED.

phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-taylor-ca9-2002.