Vasquez-Rodriguez v. U.S.

Full title: JOSE VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Oct 1, 2007

Cr. No. 06-0333 GT (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2007)

Opinion

Cr. No. 06-0333 GT.

October 1, 2007

ORDER

GORDON THOMPSON JR., Senior District Judge

Defendant, Jose Vasquez-Rodriguez ("Mr. Vasquez"), filed an Objection to this Court's Imposition of Supervised Release, which the Court assumes is a Motion to Modify his Sentence, presumably pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Vasquez's Objection/Motion is DENIED.

Mr. Vasquez correctly states that imposition of supervised release is not mandatory except under certain conditions which are not applicable in his case. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a). Under § 3583 the court must consider the relevant factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. However, Mr. Vasquez is incorrect in asserting that the Court must hold a "additional sentencing hearing" to determine whether or not supervised release is appropriate. Mr. Vasquez is also incorrect in arguing that the term of supervised release is an "increased penalty." The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that supervised release is part of the original sentence and not an increased penalty. United States v. Liero, 298 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9^th Cir. 2002). Since supervised release is part of the original sentence, an additional sentencing hearing is not required.

Additionally, the Court at the time of sentencing considered all the relevant factors in § 3553(a) in determining Mr. Vasquez's term of imprisonment and term of supervised release. Hence, the imposition of supervised release in Mr. Vasquez's case comported with the statutory requirements. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Vasquez's Motion/Objection is DENIED.