Muhammad
United States v. Muhammad
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Defendant-Appellant Hashim Muhammad appeals the district court’s revocation of his term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary for this decision.
*863 Muhammad contends he could not have violated California Penal Code § 273.6 (intentional and knowing violation of a protective order), because the order he is alleged to have violated was invalid. The proof of service of the notice of the July 21, 2003 hearing contained an invalid address for the process server. Because of this defect, Muhammad argues that the Notice, the July 21, 2003 hearing, and the resulting protective order are invalid. We disagree. The invalid address for the process server is a minor defect, and does not render the notice of hearing ineffective. See Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc., 7 Cal. App.4th 950 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 306, 312-13 (1992) (trial court did not err when it accepted as true the proof of personal service despite error on the proof of service form that indicated an incorrect address for the respondents alleged to have been served).