Summary
concluding the defendant received actual notice where he was told “orally at his original sentencing hearing that he was forbidden from reentering or attempting to reenter the United States”
Summary of this case from United States v. Albarran-SoteloOpinion
No. 07-50114.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 26, 2007.
Eugene S. Litvinoff, Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John R. Fielding, Jr., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Gordon Thompson, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-01098-GT.
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.
Jose Angel Perez-Fierro appeals from the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perez-Fierro contends that the revocation proceedings violated his right to due process because he did not receive written notice of the conditions of supervised release. We disagree. The district court gave Perez-Fierro actual notice orally at his original sentencing hearing that he was forbidden from reentering or attempting to reenter the United States illegally. We conclude that the district court's alleged failure to give written notice did not violate due process. See United States v. Ortega-Brito, 311 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002).