Opinion
No. 07-30128.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 26, 2007.
Lori A. Harper Suek, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, Esq., FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-99-00017-CCL.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nigel Hunter appeals from the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hunter contends that his supervised release should not have been revoked because he attended a drug and alcohol relapse program at the direction of his probation officer, after his admitted use of alcohol. This argument fails because attending a treatment program after a supervised release violation does not preclude a subsequent revocation petition based upon that violation. See United States v. Shampang, 987 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1993). Moreover, there is no indication that Hunter was misled or promised that supervised release would not be revoked if he attended the treatment program. Id. AFFIRMED.