United States v. Goldberg

239 F. App'x 993
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 4, 2007
Docket06-3933
StatusUnpublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 239 F. App'x 993 (United States v. Goldberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Goldberg, 239 F. App'x 993 (6th Cir. 2007).

Opinion

THOMAS W. PHILLIPS, District Judge.

Defendant Sheldon Goldberg appeals his sentence following conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, aiding and abetting mail fraud, and selling and aiding and abetting the sale of stolen vehicles, two of which offenses are Class C felonies. Because defendant’s period of incarceration has expired, we conclude that the appeal is now moot.

After entering a plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and transporting and selling falsely reported stolen vehicles, defendant was sentenced to five months of incarceration and five months of home confinement followed by two years of supervised release. Review of the record *994 shows that defendant does not challenge his conviction. Rather, the only aspect of his sentence that defendant challenges is the imposition of a five month term of imprisonment. The five month sentence expired on or about January 1, 2007. Consequently, the matter is now moot. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982). “If a prisoner does not challenge the validity of the conviction but rather only challenges his sentence or some aspect of it, the request for relief is moot once the challenged portion of the sentence has expired.” United States v. Manogg, 1993 WL 88217, *1, 1993 U.S.App. LEXIS 6980, *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 1993) (citing Lane, 455 U.S. at 631, 102 S.Ct. 1322).

Moreover, even if the time the defendant served in prison was found to be excessive, that time cannot be credited to the defendant’s time of supervised release. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 60, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000). Therefore, defendant’s period of supervised release would still be two years and there is no relief which can be granted to him. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2) (“[I]f a term of supervised release is ordered, the length of the term shall be: ... (2) At least two years but not more than three years for a defendant convicted of a Class C or D felony.”). Because defendant has shown no injury which can be redressed, his appeal is dismissed as moot.

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

Related

Hughes v. Lawson
E.D. Tennessee, 2023
United States v. Dyson
639 F.3d 230 (Sixth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Brown
631 F.3d 573 (First Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Leland Smart, Jr.
406 F. App'x 14 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Steven Hood v. Julius Wilson
389 F. App'x 522 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Anthony Bravo
362 F. App'x 456 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 F. App'x 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-goldberg-ca6-2007.