United States v. John Patrick Couch

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. John Patrick Couch

695 F. App'x 532

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

Docket16-16361 Non-Argument Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 695 F. App'x 532 (United States v. John Patrick Couch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. John Patrick Couch, 695 F. App'x 532 (11th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John Patrick Couch, M.D., filed an interlocutory appeal seeking the reversal of the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate several pretrial warrants, arguing that the government improperly seized certain of his assets. After Dr. Couch filed his appeal, his case proceeded to trial. Dr; Couch was ultimately convicted of several conspiracy and narcotics charges related to a scheme to distribute controlled substances under the guise of maintaining a pain management facility. Following his convictions, Dr. Couch and the government entered into a forfeiture agreement stipulating that Dr. Couch was voluntarily forfeiting the related assets and that the government had established the necessary connection between the forfeited assets and his illegal acts. The district court subsequently entered a preliminary order of forfeiture.

Upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and their responses to our latest jurisdictional question, we agree with the parties that this appeal is now moot. As a result, we dismiss Dr. Couch’s appeal. See United States v. Serrapio, 754 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th. Cir. 2014) (“A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012)).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.

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

PER CURIAM:

John Patrick Couch, M.D., filed an interlocutory appeal seeking the reversal of the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate several pretrial warrants, arguing that the government improperly seized certain of his assets. After Dr. Couch filed his appeal, his case proceeded to trial. Dr; Couch was ultimately convicted of several conspiracy and narcotics charges related to a scheme to distribute controlled substances under the guise of maintaining a pain management facility. Following his convictions, Dr. Couch and the government entered into a forfeiture agreement stipulating that Dr. Couch was voluntarily forfeiting the related assets and that the government had established the necessary connection between the forfeited assets and his illegal acts. The district court subsequently entered a preliminary order of forfeiture.

Upon review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and their responses to our latest jurisdictional question, we agree with the parties that this appeal is now moot. As a result, we dismiss Dr. Couch’s appeal. See United States v. Serrapio, 754 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th. Cir. 2014) (“A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012)).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 F. App'x 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-patrick-couch-ca11-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack