United States v. Reese

360 F. App'x 502

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 12, 2010
• Docket: 08-8072, 09-7191
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 08-8072 dismissed; No. 09-7191 affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Willie Lewis Reese, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s August 4, 2008 order denying his motion for release on bond pending the disposition of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion (No. 08-8072) and May 15, 2009 order granting in part and denying in part his motion seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis (No. 09-7191). The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion on October 16, 2008, while Reese’s appeal in No. 08-8072 was pending in this court.

Although a district court order denying a § 2255 movant’s request for release on bond pending the disposition of his § 2255 motion is an appealable collateral order, see United States v. Smith, 835 F.2d 1048, 1049-50 (3d Cir.1987); Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d 335, 337 (7th Cir.1985), in light of the district court’s dismissal of the § 2255 motion, Reese’s appeal of the August 4, 2008 order denying his motion for release on bond is now moot. See Incu-maa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 285-86 (4th Cir.2007) (setting forth the principles of appellate mootness). We therefore dismiss the appeal in No. 08-8072 as moot and deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris.

Turning to the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Reese’s motion seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 09-7191, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Reese, No. 3:05-cr-00241-RJC-1 (W.D.N.C. May 15, 2009). However, we grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 08-8072 DISMISSED.

No. 09-7191 AFFIRMED.