U.S. v. Juarez, No. 09-50323 (4-8-10) (per curiam with Schroeder, Fisher and N. Smith). Fugitive! The word itself conjures running from the law. It also means tolling the chain gang of supervised release. That is what this case is about. Defendant was convicted of bank robbery in 1989. He was deported in 1992. His supervised release was due to expire in 1995. Ah, but the defendant came back to the U.S. in 1993. We know because he applied for a state driver's license in a false name. He was arrested in 1994 and again in 1995, the later for robbery, for which he got 15 years. After he served his time, he was released to the federal detainer. He argued that his SR expired in 1995, before the court issued a warrant. "No," said the 9th, "because you were a fugitive." The 9th explained that he became a fugitive when he came back to the US (illegally) and failed to inform the probation officer of his change of address. Yes, that is the reasoning. The defendant had 72 hours to notify the probation office of his whereabouts when he returned. Fugitive tolling begins when the defendant absconds from supervision, making it impossible for the probation officer to supervise his actions, and ends when federal authorities are capable of resuming supervision. Direct supervision is not possible when the defendant was in Mexico, but was triggered when he returned, and then was tolled three days after it could be verified he was back in the U.S. and had not contacted his PO. The SR term does not toll only when a bench warrant is issued, but from the moment of absconding.