Background
David Lonich was convicted in 2017 on multiple fraud-related counts in the Northern District of California. After an appeal to the Ninth Circuit resulted in a remand for resentencing, he was sentenced to five years of supervised release in 2023. While his second appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, his supervision was transferred to the Middle District of Alabama. In late 2024, he moved to terminate his supervised release, but the district court declined to rule on the merits because the Ninth Circuit appeal remained pending. The district court denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed de novo whether a pending appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction. Citing United States v. Tovar-Rico and Shewchun v. United States, the court reiterated that filing a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over the aspects of the case involved. The court found that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction because Lonich’s motion was filed while his sentence, including supervised release, was still under review by the Ninth Circuit. This determination served the interests of judicial economy and fairness by avoiding a two-front war for the parties.
What it means going forward
Defendants cannot seek early termination of supervised release in a district court while a separate appeal of their sentence is pending in another circuit. They must wait for the appellate court to issue its mandate before the district court can regain jurisdiction to consider such motions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download