United States v. Gabriel Lee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 23-11975
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-11975 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11975 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

GABRIEL HAKEEM LEE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-00091-ECM-CWB-3 ____________________

Before LUCK, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gabriel Hakeem Lee appeals his conviction and sentence for distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Lee’s ap- pointed counsel, Thomas M. Goggans, filed a motion to withdraw USCA11 Case: 23-11975 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11975

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We denied Goggans’s Anders motion and ordered merits briefing as to whether Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines applied ret- roactively on direct appeal and lowered Lee’s guideline range. While his appeal was pending, the district court entered an order purporting to grant Lee a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 and reduce his im- prisonment term. In his merits brief, Lee argued only that we should treat the district court’s order as an indicative ruling and or- der a limited remand to the district court to allow it to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). We issued an opinion treating the dis- trict court’s order as an indicative ruling and remanding for the lim- ited purpose of allowing the district court to enter an order regard- ing Lee’s entitlement to relief under § 3582(c)(2). On remand, the district court issued an order finding that Lee was entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 and reducing his im- prisonment sentence. An appeal is moot “when it no longer presents a live contro- versy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t of Health & Re- hab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ethredge v. Hail, 996 F.2d 1173, 1175 (11th Cir. 1993)). Here, there is no longer a live controversy with respect to which we can give meaningful relief to Lee because he has already received the relief he re- quested—a limited remand to the district court for it to enter an order regarding Lee’s entitlement to relief under § 3582(c)(2) and a USCA11 Case: 23-11975 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2025 Page: 3 of 3

23-11975 Opinion of the Court 3

subsequent district court order granting him a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Thus, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.