United States v. Carlos Ruiz-Garcia

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 9, 2020·No. 20-50706·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-50706 Document: 00515630140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2020

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 20-50706

November 6, 2020

Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos Eduardo Ruiz-Garcia,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-358-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Carlos Eduardo Ruiz-Garcia appeals the district court’s order of pretrial detention. Because he has pleaded guilty and the district court has accepted his plea, his appeal is moot. See United States v. Ramirez, 145 F.3d 345, 356 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. O’Saughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th

*

Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-50706 Document: 00515630140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2020

No. 20-50706

Cir. 1985). We lack the power to decide moot questions, that is, “when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, Ruiz-Garcia’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

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

United States v. Carlos Ruiz-Garcia, (5th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Carlos Ruiz-Garcia (United States v. Carlos Ruiz-Garcia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Ramirez
145 F.3d 345 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Calderon v. Moore
518 U.S. 149 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Michael O'ShaughneSSy
772 F.2d 112 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)