Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalberto NAJAR-ESPERIQUETA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-17
Citations: 134 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 05-50001; D.C. No. CR-99-02020-NAJ
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adalberto NAJAR-ESPERIQUETA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adalberto NAJAR-ESPERIQUETA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50001.
D.C. No. CR-99-02020-NAJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 17, 2005.
Karl A. Sandoval, Esq., USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff—Appellee.
Holly Sullivan, FDSD—Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant—Appellant.
Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adalberto Najar-Esperiqueta appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release. The district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Najar-Esperiqueta's supervised release after the supervision, term had expired because no warrant, based upon sworn allegations, was issued during the supervision term as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). United States v. Vargas-Amaya, 389 F.3d 901 (9th Cir.2004).
The district court's order is therefore VACATED and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
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.