Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Joe HARRIS, also known as Mohamad Aziz, also known as Ezekiel Maza, Appellant
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-12
Citations: 701 F. App'x 4
Docket Number: No. 17-3072
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Joe HARRIS, also known as Mohamad Aziz, also known as Ezekiel Maza, Appellant
Judges: BEFORE: Henderson, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 701
Pages: 4–4

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Joe HARRIS, also known as Mohamad Aziz, also known as Ezekiel Maza, Appellant
No. 17-3072
September Term, 2017
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: October 12, 2017
Elizabeth Trosman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Appellate Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Joe Harris, Pro Se
BEFORE: Henderson, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant, which the court construes as a memorandum of law and facts. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36(d). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the district court entered on September 7, 2017, denying appellant's motion to extend his travel permit, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court's order constitutes an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hunt, 843 F.3d 1022, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (reviewing district court's management of supervised release for abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Mosby, 719 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) ("We review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a motion to modify the terms of supervised release."). Insofar as appellant seeks to challenge the validity of his conviction or his terms of supervised release, those issues are outside the scope of the order on appeal.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.