United States v. Josue Villalta

615 F. App'x 157
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 8, 2015
Docket14-4817
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 615 F. App'x 157 (United States v. Josue Villalta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Josue Villalta, 615 F. App'x 157 (4th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josué Villalta pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012), and was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. The only issue Villalta raises on appeal is a challenge to the district court’s finding that he had previously been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” triggering an eight-level enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) (2013), and resulting in a Sentencing Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

During the pendency of this appeal, Vil-lalta was released from imprisonment. Accordingly, his arguments challenging the district court’s imposition of the 13-month prison term are moot. Cf. United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 284-85 (4th Cir.2008) (noting that appellant’s release from prison during pendency of appeal mooted challenge to revocation of supervised release and imposition of prison sentence); see Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191,197 (4th Cir.2002) (“[Whether we are presented with a live case or controversy is a question we may raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Vil-lalta does not challenge either his conviction or the district court’s imposition of supervised release.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

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

Related

Tovar v. Marshall
S.D. West Virginia, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
615 F. App'x 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-josue-villalta-ca4-2015.