Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8625035
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Zuniga-Espinosa
No. 8625035 · Decided September 25, 2006
No. 8625035·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
September 25, 2006
Citation
No. 8625035
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** A review of the record, the opening brief and the response to the order to show cause indicate that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also United States v. Ortuno-Higare *252 da, 450 F.3d 406 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the district court has jurisdiction to revoke supervised release before the expiration of the supervised release term in the absence of a warrant or even if the warrant is defective). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. All pending motions are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** A review of the record, the opening brief and the response to the order to show cause indicate that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** A review of the record, the opening brief and the response to the order to show cause indicate that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
02Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard); see also United States v.
03Ortuno-Higare *252 da, 450 F.3d 406 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the district court has jurisdiction to revoke supervised release before the expiration of the supervised release term in the absence of a warrant or even if the warrant is def
04Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** A review of the record, the opening brief and the response to the order to show cause indicate that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Zuniga-Espinosa in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on September 25, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8625035 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.