US v. Josue Villalta
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00195-DKC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [14-4817]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JOSUE VILLALTA, a/k/a Walter Alberto Sanchez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
June 17, 2015
September 8, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Appellate
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Sujit
Raman, Chief of Appeals, Greenbelt, Maryland; Leslie Caldwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, James I. Pearce, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012), and was
sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised
challenge to the district court’s finding that he had previously
been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” triggering an eightlevel enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
We dismiss the appeal as
During the pendency of this appeal, Villalta was released
Accordingly, his arguments challenging the
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) (“[W]hether 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
Villalta does not challenge either his conviction or
the district court’s imposition of supervised release.
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?