Pittman

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Mario Dion Pittman appeals the district court’s revocation of his super *726 vised release and imposition of a thirty-six month prison sentence. The district court revoked Pittman’s supervised release because of his arrest for the transportation of marijuana for sale in Arizona on January 13, 2005. 1 At his supervised release revocation hearing, Pittman argued that the district court should have suppressed evidence relating to his arrest for the transportation of marijuana because the police obtained it through an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied his objection, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings.

On appeal, Pittman argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence because it was the product of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment by law enforcement. He also contends that United States v. Hebert, 201 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings), was wrongly decided.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse…