Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael L JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-19
Citations: 150 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 05-60155
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael L JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 150
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael L JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-60155.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
Linda Randle Anderson, Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Banks, Coker & Cole, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Johnson appeals following the revocation of his supervised release and the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm.
Johnson argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release. He contends that at the time he allegedly violated the terms of his release he was under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") as a participant in the MDOC's Earned Release Supervision ("ERS") Program and that his federal supervised release had not yet commenced.
We review de novo a district court's jurisdiction to revoke supervised release. United States v. English, 400 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.2005). We conclude from a plain reading of the relevant statutes that Johnson's federal supervised release commenced when he was released from confinement to the ERS program, and the district court did not lack jurisdiction to revoke the supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e); Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-138; cf. United States v. Lynch, 114 F.3d 61, 63-64 (5th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.