United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 11-3282

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rudolph George Stanko

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: April 18, 2012

 Filed: August 6, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Rudolph George Stanko appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to

modify the conditions of his supervised release. Because this matter is now moot, we

dismiss the appeal. 
In August of 2006, Stanko was sentenced to 72 months imprisonment to be

followed by 3 years ofsupervised release for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(possession

of a firearm or ammunition by a prohibited person). While incarcerated at the Bureau

of Prison’s facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, Stanko filed a motion with the district

court in Nebraska, requesting that he be able to serve his supervised release time in

Montana, where some of his family members reside. Initially the court denied the

motion, but sua sponte reconsidered the motion and granted it on August 19, 2010. 

Despite the order granting Stanko’s motion, the Nebraska district court failed to

initiate the transfer to Montana at that time. 

A year later and shortly before his release, Stanko filed with the Nebraska

district court an August 19, 2011 motion to modify the conditions of his supervised

release. On Friday, September 9, 2011, Stanko was released. He was directed to

report to the probation office on Monday, in Missoula, Montana, and he was provided

a bus ticket that would have taken him to Missoula by Sunday evening. When Stanko

arrived in Chicago, however, he exchanged the ticket to Missoula for one to North

Platte, Nebraska. He appeared in the clerk’s office in North Platte on Monday and

then reported to the probation office in North Platte on Tuesday, September 13, 2011. 

Also on that Tuesday, the Nebraska district court finally entered its order

transferring jurisdiction of Stanko’s supervised release to Montana. Under the order,

transfer would occur “upon that Court’s [District of Montana] order of acceptance of

jurisdiction.” On September 20, 2011, the district court for Nebraska denied Stanko’s

request for modification of his supervised release on the grounds that Nebraska no

longer possessed jurisdiction because the case had been transferred. On September

21, 2011, the District of Montana entered an order accepting jurisdiction of Stanko’s

supervised release. 

Stanko was arrested for failing to appear in the District of Montana as ordered. 

A magistrate judge in Nebraska held an identity and detention hearing on September

-2-
22, 2011. The magistrate judge released Stanko and ordered him to appear before a

judge in Montana on October 12, 2011. As part of the release order, the magistrate

judge also entered conditions for Stanko to comply with during his release and prior

to his appearance in Montana. Stanko filed objections to the release order, and the

Nebraska district court overruled those objections. Stanko appeals the denial of his

motion to modify the conditions of his supervised release and the release order

entered by the magistrate judge.

1

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3605, a district court may transfer jurisdiction over a person

on supervised release to another district court with the concurrence of that court. 18

U.S.C. § 3605. When that transfer occurs, the court to which jurisdiction was

transferred is given the authority to exercise all powers over the person pertaining to

the modification of a term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583. See 18

U.S.C. § 3605. 

Stanko is correct that on September 20, 2011, when the district court in

Nebraska entered the order denying his motion to modify the supervised release

conditions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583, the district court erred in concluding that it

lacked jurisdiction because, at that time, the district court in Montana had not yet

consented to the transfer of jurisdiction. 

However, this matter is now moot. As of September 21, 2011, the district court

in Montana assumed jurisdiction over Stanko’s supervised release by consenting to

the transfer. Our review of the decisions of the Nebraska district court will have no

impact because that court no longer has the authority to modify Stanko’s supervised

release conditions. Even if this court were to remand to the district court in Nebraska

Because the time frame applicable to the magistrate judge’s release

1

order—from the time of Stanko’s release until he appeared before the district judge

in Montana on October 12, 2011—has expired, this issue is moot. 

-3-
because its reason for denying the motion to modify wasincorrect, the court could not

consider the motion now. Thus, there is no action this court can take that would give

Stanko the relief he seeks. Cf. State of Neb. v. Cent. Interstate Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Compact Comm’n, 187 F.3d 982, 987 (8th Cir. 1999) (“When . . .

the court cannot grant specific and conclusive relief as to an issue raised, then the

issue is moot.”). 

Because this matter is now moot, we dismiss Stanko’s appeal. 

______________________________

-4-