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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999655192]. [14-4817]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4817 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/08/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4817 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSUE VILLALTA, a/k/a Walter Alberto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 Judge. (8:14-cr-00195-DKC-1) Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-4817 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/08/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Josue 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 eightlevel enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2013), and resulting Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months. in a Sentencing We dismiss the appeal as moot. During the pendency of this appeal, Villalta was released from imprisonment. district moot. court’s Accordingly, his arguments challenging the imposition of the 13-month prison term are 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 III jurisdiction omitted)). of the courts.” (internal quotation marks Villalta does not challenge either his conviction or the district court’s imposition of supervised release. 2 Appeal: 14-4817 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/08/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 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 3

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?