Charles Verdel Farnsworth, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 892 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Petitioner appeals the district court's denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Farnsworth claims that the district court was without jurisdiction to revoke his probationary sentence because his probation had not yet begun at the time of the court's order.

By its denial of Farnsworth's § 2255 motion, the district court indicated its intention that the phrase "consecutive to the time served" was to mean consecutive to petitioner's time in custody, rather than consecutive to completion of the parole portion, of his 1978 sentence. See United States v. O'Brien, 789 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1986). In any event a district court may revoke probation for a pre-probation offense. U.S. v. Daly, 839 F.2d 598, 601 (9th Cir. 1988). Consequently, the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction to revoke Farnsworth's probation.

AFFIRMED.