5th Cir.

United States v. Ruiz-Arauz

May 18, 2026 ·25-50417 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's revocation of supervised release despite the revocation occurring after the term expired. The court held that jurisdiction was preserved by the timely filing of a petition and issuance of an arrest warrant.

Background

The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and received a sentence of twenty-four months in prison plus three years of supervised release. After serving his prison term, he was transferred to immigration custody. His supervision was later revoked for non-compliance, but the revocation occurred after the three-year term had technically ended.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the claim de novo and found the defendant’s argument lacked merit. The supervised release term commenced upon release from confinement, not upon the expiration of the prison sentence. Under Section eighteen U.S.C. thirty-six hundred twenty-four subsection e, the term begins when the defendant is released. Furthermore, Section eighteen U.S.C. thirty-five hundred eighty-three subsection i preserves jurisdiction if a petition is filed and an arrest warrant is issued before the term ends. The three-month gap between the term’s expiration and the revocation did not cause the court to lose jurisdiction.

What it means going forward

District courts retain jurisdiction to revoke supervised release even if the revocation hearing occurs after the term expires, provided the petition and warrant were filed timely.