Alvarez v. US Attorney General

145 F. App'x 428
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 11, 2005
Docket03-6657
StatusUnpublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 145 F. App'x 428 (Alvarez v. US Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alvarez v. US Attorney General, 145 F. App'x 428 (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brunet Renato Alvarez noted an appeal from an order of the district court adopting the report of the magistrate judge and denying Alvarez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition for habeas corpus relief. Alvarez complained that his indefinite detention by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service was prohibited by the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). It has come to the attention of the court that Alvarez has now been released from detention. The Respondents argue that his appeal is therefore moot.

Since Alvarez’s § 2241 petition was based on his claim of illegal detention, and sought only release from that detention, we conclude that his release renders the appeal moot. A federal court lacks authority to render decisions on moot questions or make rulings that cannot affect the case before it. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992). The controversy must exist at all stages of review; on appeal, if the litigant has lost all concrete interest in the case, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. Toms v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, Inc., 179 F.3d 103, 105 (4th Cir.1999). “Generally, an appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate court from granting any effective relief.” In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir.1981).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AS MOOT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled Case
S.D. West Virginia, 2026
Untitled Case
E.D. Virginia, 2026
Untitled Case
S.D. West Virginia, 2026
Juvonta Lafond v. FCI Beckley Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2026
Lachaunti Williams v. W. Holzapfel
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Brodie v. Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Miller v. Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Davis v. Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Rosser-Burch v. Holzapfel
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Carter v. Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Matthews v. Warden
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Overly v. Holzapfel
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Richards v. Parks
W.D. Virginia, 2025
Anderson v. Holzapfel
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Hagler v. Heckard
S.D. West Virginia, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 F. App'x 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-us-attorney-general-ca4-2005.