513 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Juarez, 601 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“We review de novo whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release.”). 4 Appellant’s Br. at 11. 5 See United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 314 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Nothing in the text of § 3624(e), or any other statute, indicates that the revocation of one term of supervised release necessarily terminates another term of supervision simply because it runs concurrently with the term being revoked .... Accordingly, we hold that revocation of a term of supervised release for one conviction does not terminate supervised release imposed as a result of a separate conviction.”); United States v. Alvarado, 201 F.3d 379, 381-82 (5th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Mittelstadt, 88
holding that deportation does not extinguish term of supervised release holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e holding that the revocation of one term of supervised release did not automatically terminate another