Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01179/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1179

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas

Catherynne Kendrick, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2005

Filed: November 4, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Catherynne Kendrick appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1

 for the Western District of Arkansas dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

as premature. In July 2002 Kendrick pleaded guilty to one count of threat by

interstate communications, and the district court sentenced her to 10 months in prison

and 3 years supervised release. In June 2004 Kendrick’s probation officer petitioned

Appellate Case: 05-1179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2005 Entry ID: 1971409
-2-

the court to issue a warrant for Kendrick’s arrest, alleging that Kendrick had violated

her supervision conditions. Kendrick filed a petition under § 2241, contesting the

allegations in the warrant petition. The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition

as premature, as the district court had not yet considered whether to revoke

Kendrick’s supervised release.

We agree with the district court that Kendrick’s petition is premature, as the

court has not yet revoked her supervised release or even scheduled a revocation

hearing. If the district court does revoke Kendrick’s supervised release in the future,

she may file a direct appeal challenging the revocation at that time. See, e.g., United

States v. Nace, 418 F.3d 945, 946 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

___________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2005 Entry ID: 1971409