United States v. Kouang Viphongxai

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 28, 2021
• Docket: 20-2849
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2849 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kouang Viphongxai

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________

Submitted: June 18, 2021 Filed: June 28, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

After Kouang Viphongxai pleaded guilty to one count of passing counterfeit obligations or securities of the United States, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 472, the district court1 sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Viphongxai appealed, arguing that the district court committed procedural error in imposing a five-point offense-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)-(3), which affected the calculation of his advisory sentencing guidelines range.

While this appeal was pending, the Government informed us that on April 5, 2021, Viphongxai was released from the Bureau of Prisons’ custody to begin his term of supervised release. Because Viphongxai challenged on appeal only his sentence of imprisonment, we ordered Viphongxai to address whether his appeal was moot. See Owen v. United States, 930 F.3d 989, 989-91 (8th Cir. 2019) (dismissing an appeal as moot because the appellant challenged only the length of his term of imprisonment but completed that term and was released from prison while the appeal was pending). In response, Viphongxai stated that he “takes no position on mootness.”

“[W]e have no jurisdiction over appeals that are moot.” United States v. Evans, 690 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2012). Because Viphongxai challenged on appeal only the length of his term of imprisonment, and he has completed that term, we conclude that this appeal is moot. See Owen, 930 F.3d at 990. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________

-2-