Richard Valenciano v. Warden FCI Edgefield

691 F. App'x 126
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 6, 2017
Docket14-7901
StatusUnpublished

This text of 691 F. App'x 126 (Richard Valenciano v. Warden FCI Edgefield) 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
Richard Valenciano v. Warden FCI Edgefield, 691 F. App'x 126 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Valenciano, a former federal prisoner, has appealed the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. In the petition, he challenged his sentence as an armed career criminal, arguing that one of his predicate prior convictions was no longer a qualifying violent felony. While this appeal was pending, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Valenciano’s authorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, *127 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). He was resentenced and released from custody, and he is currently on supervised release. “Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sna sponte by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.” Un ited States v. Springer, 715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Because Valenciano has already been granted the relief that he sought in his § 2241 petition, we conclude that the appeal is moot. See also United States v. Surratt, 855 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 2017) (dismissed as moot following en banc argument).

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

DISMISSED

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

Related

United States v. Frederick Springer
715 F.3d 535 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)
United States v. Raymond Surratt, Jr.
855 F.3d 218 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
691 F. App'x 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-valenciano-v-warden-fci-edgefield-ca4-2017.