Narrative Opinion Summary
Juan Armando Lechuga-Montalvo appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the sentence imposed as a result. He argues that the procedure for revoking supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 is unconstitutional. However, this argument is precluded by the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Santana, which Lechuga-Montalvo fails to distinguish from his case. The court affirms the district court’s order. This ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutionality of Supervised Release Revocation Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's argument that the procedure for revoking supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 is unconstitutional was rejected, as it was precluded by established precedent in the Ninth Circuit.
Reasoning: He argues that the procedure for revoking supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 is unconstitutional. However, this argument is precluded by the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Santana, which Lechuga-Montalvo fails to distinguish from his case.
Precedential Effect of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision affirms the district court’s order but clarifies that the ruling is not intended for publication and does not establish precedent, aligning with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court’s order. This ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.