Pro Tunc Order Terminating The Term Of Supervised Release.” Although his motion is difficult to understand, in it Bolivar appears to argue that the district court had lacked jurisdiction to correct his sentence in August 2001 because, according to Bolivar, his sentence expired when he was released from prison and deported in 1999. The government did not respond to Bolivar’s motion, and the district court summarily denied it. On appeal Bolivar reasserts his argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reinstitute the term of supervised release. Although Bolivar was released from confinement in May 1999 and deported a short time later, he remained on parole and subject to a four-year term of supervised release. See United States v. Akinyemi, 108 F.3d 777, 779-80 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Cuero-Flores, 276
holding that deportation does not extinguish term of parole 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 deportation does not extinguish term of supervised release 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 further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release