2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-5-2004 

# U S A v . Alevr a s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3771

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Alevr as " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 145. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/145NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-3771

____________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. CHRIS G. ALEVRA S, Appellant

____________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. No. 97-cr -00099) District Judge: H onorab le Joseph A . Greena way, Jr.

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 29, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , FIS HE R a nd G RE EN BE RG , Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed November 5, 2004 )

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ FIS HE R, Circuit

Judge
. As we write for the parti es only , we reci te only those fac ts pertinent

to our disposi tion of t

his appeal . In 1997, appell ant – who is a l aw school graduate but has never been licensed to practice l aw in any state – pled guil ty to bank fraud, false claims,1 Normally, where the district court l acks jurisdiction to decide on the merits a

chall enge to the legal ity of conditions of r elease , we would vacate a nd remand for juri sdictional di smissal . But befor e the di stri ct court , appel lant a lso sought modification 2 and possess ion of a fi rearm bya convict ed felon. In a pro se motion f iled six years later, he s oug ht to cha lleng e his con ditio ns o f su per vise d re leas e pu rsua nt to 18 U .S.C . § 3583(e)( 2) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1. The di stri ct court denied the motion. On appeal, appel lant onl y chal lenges t he legal ity

of cert ain condi tions of supervi sed rel ease. Rul e 32.1, however, is an inappropriate vehicl e to chal lenge the lega lity of s upe rvise d re leas e. See United States v. Kress , 944 F.2d 155, 158 n.4 (3d C ir. 199 1). E ven if co nstru ed a s a R ule 3 5 m otio n, an y such mo tion wo uld be u ntim ely. See id. (construing pro se mot io n un der Rul e 32 .1 pr ecu rs oras Rul e 35 mot io n) ; F ed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) ( “Within 7 day s after sentenci ng, the court maycorrect a sentenc e that resul ted from arithmetical , te chnical , or ot her cle ar err or.”) . Simil arly , feder al court s lack juri sdiction to entertai n chall enges to t he legal ity

of rele ase condit

ions under

secti on 3583(e)( 2); suc h arguments s hould be rai sed on dir ect appeal , thr ough 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or b y time ly mo tion und er R ule 3 5(a ). See United States v. Hatten , 167 F.3d 884, 886 (5th C ir. 1999 ); United States v. Luss ier , 104 F.3d 32, 36-37 (2d Cir. 199 7). To the extent

appell ant chal lenged the legal ity of his condi tions of rele ase, t he dist rict court l acked jurisdi ction. To the extent appell ant sought

genuine modifi cati on rather challengin g the legality of his cond itions of superv ised release, the district court had juri sdiction and did not abuse it s discretion i n refusi ng to grant a heari ng. 1 Fi na lly,to clarifythe meaning of “ dangerous devi ces” and “des tructive devi ces,” an issue ove r

wh ich th e dis trict c our t pro per ly exe rcise d ju risdi ction
. See Lussier , 104 F.3d at 35 (sec tion 358 3(e )(2) a uth oriz es m odi fica tion wh en it s erv es g ene ral p uni shm ent g oals ). Appellant

has abandoned this i ssue on appeal . But the existence of thi s iss ue before the dist rict court gave the court

juri sdiction to i ssue a j udgment; therefore, rather than vac at in g t he j udg ment

and re mand in g fo r d is mis sa l, we wi llaff irm. 3 we find basel ess appel lant’ s suggestion that the dis tri ct judge should be r ecused on
rema nd b ecau se he allege dly took to o lon g to d ecide the m otion, a nd th en alle gedly decided i t too qui cklyafter appell ant wrote t

he judge t o complain t

hat it was taking t oo long for the mo tion’s d ispositio n. In an y case, the matte r is mo ot as n o rem and is requir ed. The ju dgm en t o f the di st ri ct co ur t wi llbe AFFI RMED.

________________________4