Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamon Lee CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 08-50440
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamon Lee CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 965–965

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamon Lee CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50440.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Stephen Anthony Cazares, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Sarah J. Heidel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
George L. Steele, Esquire, Law Offices of George L. Steele, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lamon Lee Christensen appeals from the eight-month sentence imposed following revocation of the supervised release term he was serving following a jury-trial conviction for armed bank robbery and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Christensen contends that the district court erred by imposing consecutive three-year and two-year terms of supervised release as part of the sentence on the underlying conviction. As a result, he argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release because his supervision expired upon completion of the initial three-year term, which occurred pri- or to the conduct resulting in the revocation of supervised release. We decline to reach the merits of this argument because an appeal challenging a revocation proceeding is not the proper avenue through which to attack the validity of the original sentence. See United States v. Gerace, 997 F.2d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.