(h), a further term of supervised release, extends beyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) (emphasis added); see United States v. Hondras, 296 F.3d 601, 602 (7th Cir.2002) (stating that valid warrant or summons required for the district court to retain jurisdiction); United States v. Morales-Alejo, 193 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that prior to the expiration of supervised release, a warrant or summons must be issued for the district court to retain jurisdiction); United States v. Hazel, 106 F.Supp.2d 14, 14-15 (D.D.C.2000) (<HOLDING>). The emphasized portion of § 3583(i) quoted
holding that summons issued nearly seven months after the show cause order was entered was not issued immediately as required by statute holding that failure to serve debtors with filed complaint and issued summons rendered default judgment void holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked jurisdiction holding that court lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons was issued during term of supervision holding that a motion to modify a divorce decree was filed for purposes of rule 5105 when summons was issued