Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elejandro ZUNIGA-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-25
Citations: 202 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 04-50614
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elejandro ZUNIGA-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elejandro ZUNIGA-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50614.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2006.
Filed Sept. 25, 2006.
U.S. Attorney, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Debra R. Torres-Reyes, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A review of the record, the opening brief and the response to the order to show cause indicate that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also United States v. Ortuno-Higare da, 450 F.3d 406 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the district court has jurisdiction to revoke supervised release before the expiration of the supervised release term in the absence of a warrant or even if the warrant is defective).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.