United States District Court, D. Nevada
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is defendant Christopher Harry Gooding's
motion to appear in court for notice of charges (ECF No. 9),
filed on March 28, 2019. The government filed a response (ECF
No. 11) on April 11, 2019. Defendant did not file a reply.
March 24, 2014, Gooding was sentenced in Southern District of
California to 46 months and three years of supervised release
for importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 952, 960. (Transfer of Jurisdiction (ECF No.
4).) On May 5, 2016, this court accepted the transfer of
jurisdiction for Gooding's supervised release, which
permitted his supervised release sentence to be served in the
District of Nevada. (Order Accepting Jurisdiction (ECF No.
2).) According to the terms of Gooding's supervised
release, Gooding was to refrain from committing another
federal, state, or local crime. (See Transfer of
Jurisdiction (ECF No. 4).)
January of 2017, while serving his supervised release term,
Gooding committed new state crimes. (See Resp. (ECF
No. 11); see also Sealed 12C Petition (ECF No. 5).)
Gooding then pleaded guilty to those crimes and the Nevada
state court sentenced Gooding to “concurrent terms of
custody of 60 to 180 months on the first count and 24 to 60
months on the second count[, ]” to be served
concurrently with the California sentence. (Resp. (ECF No.
11) at 2.) By the time Gooding was in custody on the state
charges, he had completed the custodial portion of his
sentence on the California federal criminal case.
now moves to appear in court for an arraignment because he
was informed by a Nevada Department of Corrections Officer
that there is an active warrant for his arrest. (Mot. to
Appear (ECF No. 9).) Gooding raises constitutional concerns
relating to his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his
Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusations against him. (Id.) The government
responds that the motion should be denied because Gooding is
effectively requesting that the state court sentence should
override the federal sentencing guidelines. (Resp. (ECF No.
11).) Specifically, the government argues that when
determining the sentence to be imposed in a violation of
supervised release, the court shall consider the United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“Sentencing
Guidelines”). See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(4)(B). The Sentencing Guideline mandates that
any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of
… supervised release shall be ordered to be served
consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the
defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of
imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is
the basis of the revocation of … supervised release.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f).
reviewed the motion, the response, and the procedural history
in this case, the court construes defendant's motion as a
request to appear in court to resolve the supervised release
violations. Contrary to Gooding's arguments, the court
does not find any constitutional concerns implicated in this
action. While Gooding does have a right to a prompt hearing
on a supervised release revocation, that right is not
triggered until Gooding is in custody on the supervised
release violation. See United States v.
Gavilanes-Ocaranza, 772 F.3d 624, 628 (9th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 225 (2015); United
States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2008);
see also United States v. Magana-Colin, 359
Fed.Appx. 837, 838 (9th Cir. 2009) (the right is also not
triggered when the warrant remains unexecuted), cert.
denied, 560 U.S. 958 (2010). Gooding is not
currently in custody as a result of the supervised release
violation. Rather, Gooding is serving a sentence for state
criminal charges. Further, the government may postpone
adjudication of the supervised release violation until after
Gooding is released from state custody. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583 (“The power of the court to revoke a
term of supervised release for violation of a condition of
supervised release . . . extends beyond the expiration of the
term of supervised release for any period reasonably
necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its
expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons
has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a
violation."); United States v. Garrett, 253
F.3d 443, 449 (2001) (the term "reasonably
necessary" includes delays resulting from a
defendant's state charges). As such, the court does not
find good cause to require the government or probation to act
upon the supervised release violation and warrant.
Gooding's motion is therefore denied.
THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Christopher Harry
Gooding's motion to appear in court for notice of charges