Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Dale DETRICK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 907
Docket Number: No. 03-30191; D.C. No. CR-02-00516-AJB
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jonathan Dale DETRICK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 907–907

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jonathan Dale DETRICK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-30191.
D.C. No. CR-02-00516-AJB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Stephen F. Peifer, USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Laura Graser, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan Detrick appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release. He contends that the district court lacked authority to revoke his supervised release because more than seven days earner it had issued an order continuing supervised release, and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) permits correction of a sentence only within seven days of its imposition. This contention lacks merit because the district court had authority to revoke supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See United States v. Navarro-Espinosa, 30 F.3d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.