The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a pending criminal appeal does not automatically prevent a sentencing court from transferring jurisdiction over supervised release to another district.
The ruling came in the case of a defendant who sought early termination of supervision while his appeal remained pending. The sentencing court denied that request and transferred supervision under 18 USC § 3605. On appeal, he argued that the notice of appeal had divested the court of authority to make the transfer.
The Fifth Circuit rejected that position on October 22. The ordinary divestiture rule prevents a district court from changing matters placed before the appellate court, the panel explained, but the transfer did not alter the judgment or the issues under review. Section 3605 expressly permits a court to transfer jurisdiction over a person on supervised release to another district, with that court’s concurrence.
The panel also affirmed the refusal to terminate supervision early. Compliance with release conditions and evidence of rehabilitation are relevant, but they do not create an entitlement to termination. The governing statute leaves the decision to the district court after consideration of the applicable sentencing factors and the interests of justice.
The opinion therefore preserves the appeal while allowing routine administration of supervision to move to the district better placed to oversee it. The court did not treat the transfer as a resentencing or as a ruling on the merits of the pending appeal.
Read the official Fifth Circuit opinion.
