United States v. Jose Delamora

Bad Law
451 F.3d 977·2006 WL 1702679·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15574
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 200605-50589California1,929 words

Opinion

Opinion

Silverman, J.

We hold today that a defendant’s term of supervised release is tolled from the time that he absconds from supervision until the time he is found by federal authorities. Accordingly, the district court in this case had jurisdiction to conduct revocation proceedings because a sworn petition to revoke was filed before the term of supervised release, as tolled, had expired.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

In April 1987, Jose Delamora was convicted on all counts of a nine-count indictment relating to his participation in a cocaine trafficking ring. Delamora’s conviction occurred during the “window period” between the effective date of two federal statutes that govern post-confinement monitoring of drug offenders. Before the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, some drug offenders, like Delamora, were eligible for parole, but would have to serve an additional term of “special parole” following their incarceration. See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 397-99 , 111 S.Ct. 840 , 112 L.Ed.2d 919 (1991). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act replaced special parole with supervised release, see Pub.L. No. 99-570, §§ 1002(2), 1004, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986) (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. § 841…

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.