United States v. Pocklington, No. 13-50461 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 3565(c), conditions the “power of the court” to adjudicate probation violations after the probation period expires on the issuance of “a warrant or summons” before the expiration date. The court held that section 3565(c) is jurisdictional and that when Congress used the words “warrant or summons,” it meant them. If the government suspects wrongdoing and wants to extend the
probation period, section 3565(c) provides easy-to-follow instructions: get a warrant or summons before the probation expires. Because the government did not do so, the district
court lacked jurisdiction to extend defendant's probation beyond its termination date. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court’s post-termination order revoking defendant’s probation and imposing penalties for purported probation violations.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order retroactively revoking a defendant’s probation and imposing penalties for purported probation violations. The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c), which conditions the “power of the court” to adjudicate probation violations after the probation period expires on the issuance of “a warrant or summons” before the expiration date, is jurisdictional, and that because the government did not get a warrant or summons before the defendant’s probation expired, the district court lacked jurisdiction to extend the defendant’s probation beyond its termination date.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.