United States v. Cesareo Gomez-Perez
698 F. App'x 403
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cesareo Gomez-Perez appealed after the district court revoked his supervised release and imposed a sentence upon revocation.
- A warrant application describing the supervised-release violations was signed under penalty of perjury while Gomez-Perez was still under supervision.
- The arrest warrant was issued before the supervised-release term expired.
- The district court delayed revocation proceedings until related underlying drug charges were adjudicated.
- Gomez-Perez argued the court lost jurisdiction due to the delay and that the sentencing was procedurally defective or relied on improper factors.
- The district court declined to correct Gomez-Perez’s motion to take judicial notice; the government’s motion for judicial notice was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court retained jurisdiction to revoke supervised release after term expired | Warrant/summons was defective or jurisdiction ended with term | Valid warrant issued during supervision; delay was reasonably necessary to resolve related criminal case | Court retained jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) |
| Whether warrant application satisfied oath/affirmation requirement | Warrant insufficiently sworn | Signed under penalty of perjury satisfies oath requirement | Oath requirement met (Bueno-Vargas) |
| Whether delay between expiration and revocation was permissible | Delay deprived court of authority | Delay was reasonably necessary to adjudicate related drug charges | Delay permissible under § 3583(i) (Morales-Isabarras) |
| Whether sentencing was procedurally flawed or relied on improper factors | Sentence explanation insufficient; impermissible factors considered | No timely objection at sentencing; judge’s explanation was adequate; sentence for violation distinct from new-charge sentence | No plain error; sentencing procedure proper (Rita, Carty, Carter) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2004) (signing under penalty of perjury satisfies oath/affirmation requirement)
- United States v. Morales-Isabarras, 745 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 2014) (delay reasonably necessary when outcome of related criminal proceeding affects supervised-release violation)
- United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for unobjected-to sentencing errors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (Sentencing explanation adequacy principles)
- United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court need not write at length when record and arguments are straightforward)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (requirements for reasoned sentencing explanations)
AFFIRMED.