IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40773

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS UVALDO-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No. 10-40774

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,

versus

JESUS UVALDO MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 5:01-CR-330-1

No. 5:01-CR-836-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Uvaldo-Medina pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was sentenced

to 80 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The district court determined that Uvaldo-Medina’s illegal reentry was a violation of his

supervised release, and it revoked the term of supervised release, imposed an

18-month sentence, and ordered all but five months of the revocation sentence

to run concurrently with the illegal reentry sentence, for a total of 85 months of

imprisonment. Uvaldo-Medina appeals.

Uvaldo-Medina argues thatthe district courtlacked jurisdiction to revoke

his supervised release, because the conduct that the district court found to be a

violation thereof occurred after his supervised release had ended. The government agrees. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), 

The power of the courtto revoke a term of supervised release for violation of a condition of supervised release . . . extends beyond the

expiration of the term of supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation.

For a term of supervised release to be extended under § 3583(i), a violation
No. 10-40773

No. 10-40774

3

charged in the petition securing a warrant need not be “the one on which the revocation is ultimately based,” but the revocation must be based on a violation

“occurring during the supervision term.” UnitedStates v. Naranjo, 259F.3d 379,

382-83 (5th Cir. 2001).

The district court concluded that it was not worth trying to establish that

Uvaldo-Medina had violated his supervised release as alleged in the timely filed

petition; instead it revoked the supervised release on the basis of the illegal reentry, which occurred after the term of supervision had expired. The district

court did so without jurisdiction. See § 3583(i). Accordingly, the judgment of

revocation is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for a dismissal of the

revocation proceedings. 

Although Uvaldo-Medina has appealed the judgment in his illegal-reentry

case, he has failed to raise any arguments in support of that appeal. Because

issues not briefed on appeal are waived, see United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d

608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000), Uvaldo-Medina has waived any argument

concerning the illegal-reentry proceedings, and the judgment in that case is

AFFIRMED.