Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Randolph FREEMAN, also known as Dee, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-31
Citations: 420 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 10-60741
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Randolph FREEMAN, also known as Dee, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Randolph FREEMAN, also known as Dee, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-60741
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 31, 2011.
Gaines H. Cleveland, Jay Tresca Golden, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John William Weber, III, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Freeman appeals the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of 41 months of imprisonment. Freeman contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the revocation petition because his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution were violated when he was deprived of an initial appearance for 27 months following the execution of the revocation warrant.
We need not determine when the revocation warrant was executed because Freeman has not established that he was prejudiced by the alleged 27-month delay. See United States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir.1994). Therefore, he has failed to establish a due process violation and demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, in the denial of his motion to dismiss.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.