Anderson

Anderson v. United States

Good Law
61 F. App'x 369
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 1, 2003Nos. 00-16577, 01-16362; D.C. Nos. CV-00-00424-HDM, CR-96-00081-HDMCalifornia591 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ross Anderson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to transfer his supervised release. Anderson’s pro se motion to transfer his supervised release requested that the district court “compel the United States Probation Office, (USPO), to transfer his supervised release to the Central District in the State of California, specifically to Santa Barbara County, town of Solvang.” He relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3605 , which allows a district court to “transfer jurisdiction over a probationer or person on supervised release to the district court for any other district... ,” 1 The United States Probation Office allowed Anderson to five in Palmdale, California, which is located in the Central District of California, and to visit his family in Solvang. We therefore agree with the government that Anderson’s motion is moot.

Douglas Anderson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition and argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a federal prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 3 For a federal court to overturn a federal defendant’s conviction or sentence in a habeas petition on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.