United States v. Carlos Alvarez-Vasquez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Carlos Alvarez-Vasquez

506 F. App'x 317

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 2013

Docket12-40386

StatusUnpublished

This text of 506 F. App'x 317 (United States v. Carlos Alvarez-Vasquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Carlos Alvarez-Vasquez, 506 F. App'x 317 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Antonio Alvarez-Vasquez (Alvarez) appeals the 10-month prison sentence he received following the revocation of his term of supervised release. Alvarez contends that the district court plainly erred when it denied him an opportunity to allo-eute before his revocation sentence was imposed.

This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Alvarez’s reply brief was filed on October 29, 2012. Subsequently, on December 13, Alvarez was released from prison after he completed serving the instant sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. Once a criminal defendant has served his sentence, there must still be a “concrete and continuing injury” to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Alvarez has served his sentence, and it “cannot be undone.” Id. 523 U.S. at 8, 118 S.Ct. 978. When the district court revoked Alvarez’s term of supervised release, it did not impose a further term of supervised release. Thus, there are no consequences stemming from the completed sentence that would constitute a “concrete and continuing injury” under Article III. Id. 523 U.S. at 7-8, 118 S.Ct. 978. This Court has dismissed as moot appeals in which a defendant challenges an order revoking supervised release when the defendant has served the sentence and there is no further term of supervised release. United States v. Kline, 454 Fed.Appx. 372 (5th Cir.2011); United States v. Johnson, 210 Fed.Appx. 360 (5th Cir.2006). 1 Because the appeal has become moot, we lack appellate jurisdiction and DISMISS the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. The parties have notified the Court that they agree that the appeal has become moot.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Antonio Alvarez-Vasquez (Alvarez) appeals the 10-month prison sentence he received following the revocation of his term of supervised release. Alvarez contends that the district court plainly erred when it denied him an opportunity to allo-eute before his revocation sentence was imposed.

This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Alvarez’s reply brief was filed on October 29, 2012. Subsequently, on December 13, Alvarez was released from prison after he completed serving the instant sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. Once a criminal defendant has served his sentence, there must still be a “concrete and continuing injury” to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Alvarez has served his sentence, and it “cannot be undone.” Id. 523 U.S. at 8, 118 S.Ct. 978. When the district court revoked Alvarez’s term of supervised release, it did not impose a further term of supervised release. Thus, there are no consequences stemming from the completed sentence that would constitute a “concrete and continuing injury” under Article III. Id. 523 U.S. at 7-8, 118 S.Ct. 978. This Court has dismissed as moot appeals in which a defendant challenges an order revoking supervised release when the defendant has served the sentence and there is no further term of supervised release. United States v. Kline, 454 Fed.Appx. 372 (5th Cir.2011); United States v. Johnson, 210 Fed.Appx. 360 (5th Cir.2006). 1 Because the appeal has become moot, we lack appellate jurisdiction and DISMISS the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. The parties have notified the Court that they agree that the appeal has become moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 F. App'x 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carlos-alvarez-vasquez-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack