Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Jerome HOLSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-25
Citations: 367 F. App'x 809
Docket Number: No. 09-30162
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick Jerome HOLSWORTH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 809–810

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patrick Jerome HOLSWORTH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30162.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 2010.
Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Carl Andrew Colasurdo, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terrence Kellogg, Counsel, Law Office of Terrence Kellogg, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Patrick Jerome Holsworth (Holsworth) appeals the district court's denial of his motion to prevent exercise of jurisdiction by the United States Parole Commission over him.
Holsworth asserted that the district court had jurisdiction over his motion pursuant to Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 47, however, is procedural in nature and does not provide a basis for jurisdiction in federal court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 47. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, it lacked authority to address the merits of Hols-worth's motion. See Mayfield v. United States, 588 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir.2009).
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR DISMISSAL.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.