United States v. 2020-12-10 | 20-50003 | USA V. DAVID JACQUOT | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID C. JACQUOT,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50003

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03256-WQH-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

David C. Jacquot appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for transfer of his supervised release to the District of Idaho. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
A district court has discretion whether to transfer to another district

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-50003
jurisdiction over a person on supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605. See
United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d 857, 858-59 (9th Cir. 1994). The district court’s
conclusion that its familiarity with the facts of Jacquot’s case counseled against
transfer here was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that
may be drawn from the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Thus, the district court reasonably exercised its
discretion to deny transfer. Moreover, Jacquot has not shown that the district
court’s denial deprived him of access to the court; Jacquot’s assertion that he will
not be able to litigate effectively in the Southern District of California a yet-to-be-
filed motion for early termination of supervision is entirely speculative.
AFFIRMED.