Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio De Jesus MAGANA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-31
Citations: 669 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 16-30055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio De Jesus MAGANA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio De Jesus MAGANA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30055
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed October 31, 2016
Ian L. Garriques, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jeremy B. Sporn, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID—Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & IDAHO, Yakima, WA, for DefendanU-Appellant
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio de Jesus Magana appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release and the 10-month sentence imposed upon revocation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Magana contends that the district court did not have a sufficient basis to revoke supervised release because he did not formally admit the violations. The record reflects that, though Magana admitted to general "wrongdoing," he never specifically admitted to any of the five alleged violations. We, therefore, vacate the district court's judgment revoking supervised release. Upon remand, the district court shall take Magana's formal admission to the violations or, if Magana denies the violations, shall take evidence and make a finding whether Magana violated the conditions of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Magana's other claims of error.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.