United States v.Morales-Isabarras

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: 03-13-2014
  • Case #: 13-10005
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Ikuta for the Court; Circuit Judges D. Nelson and M. Smith
  • Full Text Opinion

Delays in executing a warrant under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) must be "'reasonably necessary,' taking into account 'the legitimate interests of the defendant and the government."

Juan Morales-Isabarras (Morales) has a long history of illegal entry into the United States. Morales illegally re-entered the United States on November 6, 2003 and was indicted on November 20, 2003 in the Northern District of California. Morales pled guilty to one count of illegal re-entry and was sentenced to 21 months in prison and three years’ supervised release. Morales was deported to Mexico on May 18, 2005, after serving his prison term. Morales was arrested again on August 3, 2006 for illegal re-entry into the United States. He was indicted in the Southern District of California. Morales 2006 re-entry violated 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and also violated the terms of the 2003 supervised release. The Northern District of California issued an arrest warrant on August 31, 2006 for violation of the 2003 supervised release. However, the warrant was not immediately executed on Morales because he was in federal custody stemming from the 2006 arrest. Morales again served a prison sentence and was deported to Mexico. Morales again illegally re-entered the United States sometime in 2012 and was arrested on September 12, 2012. "Approximately two weeks later, on September 25, 2012, the arrest warrant for Morales's 2003 supervised release violation was executed..." Morales moved to dismiss "asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release," because the term of supervised release had expired. The district court denied the motion. Morales appealed, "arguing only that the district court's revocation of his supervised release exceeded its jurisdiction under § 3583(i)." The Ninth Circuit found that "from the date [Morales] supervised release term ended in May 2009, until the date of his final revocation hearing and sentencing was 'reasonably necessary' for the adjudication of the violation of his 2003 supervised release conditions." Specifically, the Court found that the period of time Morales was in federal custody in another jurisdiction on unrelated charges, and the period of time Morales was in Mexico after deportation created reasonably necessary delays in executing the 2003 warrant. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search

Back to Top