Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laurence PALMER, a.k.a. Lawrence Palmer, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-03
Citations: 474 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: No. 10-36162
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Laurence PALMER, a.k.a. Lawrence Palmer, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 534–534

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Laurence PALMER, a.k.a. Lawrence Palmer, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-36162.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 3, 2012.
James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laurence Palmer, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Laurence Palmer appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to modify his supervised release term. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Palmer alleges he suffered several constitutional violations and that the district court improperly relied on a prior conviction when setting his supervised release term. Palmer's challenges to the legality of his supervised release term' are not proper grounds for modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir.2002).
Moreover, Palmer fails to show that he is entitled to relief under section 3583(e) because he is still in custody and does not argue or allege any change of circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir.2000).
To the extent Palmer's briefing of alleged constitutional violations seeks to argue the merits of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we construe those arguments as a motion for a certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.