UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41164

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ANTONIO JIMENEZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

July 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Jimenez-Martinez appeals the district court’s

revocation of supervised release and the imposition of a ten month

sentence of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We AFFIRM.

I. FACTS

After being indicted in June, 1990, Jimenez pleaded guilty to

one count of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In October, 1990, the district2

court sentenced Jimenez to a three-year term of supervised release.

On September 24, 1991, while on supervis ed release, Jimenez was

found guilty of violating the terms of his supervised release for

using drugs. The district court sentenced Jimenez to a three-year

term of supervised releas e. Thus, Jimenez’s supervised release

term was due to expire on September 23, 1994.

On August 10, 1992, a petition was filed alleging that Jimenez

tested positive for cocaine use in July, 1992. On August 13, 1992,

Jimenez was advised via t elephone that the United States Marshal

Service would be serving him with a summons to appear at an initial

hearing before a Magistrate Judge on August 26, 1992 and further

that he would be required to appear at a revocation proceeding

before the district court on September 9, 1992. The day before the

initial hearing, a probation officer visited Jimenez’s last known

address and found the house to be vacant. Jimenez did not appear

at the initial hearing and the district court issued a warrant for

Jimenez’s arrest on September 2, 1992.

On July 21, 1998, the warrant for Jimenez’s arrest was

executed when he was found by the Coast Guard on a shrimp boat off

the coast of Texas. At a revocation hearing shortly following

Jimenez’s arrest, the distric t court revoked Jimenez’s term of

supervised release and sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Jimenez argues that the district court lacked

jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release and sentence him to

prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 because the supervisory period had3

expired by the time the revocation hearing was held. The only

issue on appeal is a question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a

q uestion of law subject to d e novo review. S ee United States v.

Lynch

, 114 F.3d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1997). We hold that the district

court had jurisdiction to revoke Jimenez’s term of supervised

release.

This Court has not addressed whether the district cou rt has

jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release where the

arrest warrant was issued during the term but the rev ocation

hearing was not held until after the term expired. We must begin

with the statute in question and inte rpret the statute in

accordance with the plain meaning of its words. S ee United States

v. Ron Pair Enterprises , 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). The plain

language of 18 U.S.C. § 3853(e)(3) provides that the district court

may:

r evoke a term of supervised release, and require the

person to serve in prison all or part of the term of

supervised release without credit for time previously

served on post-release supervision, if it finds by a

preponderance of the evidence that the person violated a

condition of supervised release, pursuant to the

provisions of the Federal Rules of Crim inal Procedure

that are applicable to probation revocation....

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

Although Section 3853(e)(3) is silent as to whether the power

to revoke supervised release terminates at the end of the

supervisory period, the plain language of the statute allows for a

reasonable period of c ontinued jurisdiction by reference to the

“Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that are applicable to

probation r e vocation....” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure4

32.1(a)(2) provides for a hearing “within a reasonable time” when

a court is considering revocation or supervised release. Under the

plain language of the statute and Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32.1(a)(2), the district court could exercise

jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release and sentence an

individual to prison when an arrest warrant was issued during the

term but the revocation hearing was not held until after the term

expired. This holding is consistent with other circuits

considering the issue. See United States v. Barton , 26 F.3d 490

(4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992 (9th Cir.

1993). See also Unite d States v. Morales, 4 5 F.3d 693 (2d Cir.

1995) (affirming district court’s jurisdiction to modify a term of

supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) after date of

supervised release was scheduled to expire).

The district court could also lose jurisdiction over persons

whose actions or inac tions frustrated the execution of an arrest

warrant prior to the end of the supervision term. Similarly, “[i]f

the district court lost jurisdiction upon the lapse of the term of

s upervised release, persons who violated the conditions of their

release near the end of the supervisory period would be immune to

revocatio n.” See Barton , 26 F.3d at 492. Clearly, the district

court’s jurisdiction to revoke supervised release extends for a

reasonable time beyond the end of the supervisory term.

Jimenez’s contention that holding a revocation hearing nearly

six years after the issuance of the warrant is fundamentally unfair

and violates his right to due process is without merit. Jimenez5

frustrated the execution of the arrest warrant when he absconded.

Jimenez knew that he had violated his the terms of his supervised

release by using drugs and not reporting a new address to his

probation officer. He knew that he faced revocation and failed to

show for his initial appearance before a magist rate judge.

Jimenez’s probation officer attempted to locate him at his home

address and found that he had moved without reporting an address

change. Further, the United States Marshal’s Service made numerous

attempts to locate Jimenez by searching utility and school district

records, contacting family members, and conducting NCIC checks.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order revoking

Jimenez’s supervised release and imposing a 10 month sentence is

AFFIRMED.