Richard Valenciano v. Warden FCI Edgefield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999508781-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-01889-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000095145].. [14-7901]

Appeal: 14-7901

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7901

RICHARD VALENCIANO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FCI EDGEFIELD,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
WARDEN THOMAS,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (2:14-cv-01889-RBH)

Submitted: May 2, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Valenciano, Appellant Pro Se.

Decided: June 6, 2017

Appeal: 14-7901

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7901

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/06/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard Valenciano, a former federal prisoner, has appealed the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. In the petition, he challenged his
sentence as an armed career criminal, arguing that one of his predicate prior convictions
was no longer a qualifying violent felony. While this appeal was pending, the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Valenciano’s authorized
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). He was resentenced and released from custody, and he is currently on
supervised release. “Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sua
sponte by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.” United States v. Springer, 715
F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Because Valenciano has already been
granted the relief that he sought in his § 2241 petition, we conclude that the appeal is
moot. See also United States v. Surratt, __ F.3d __, No. 14-6851, 2017 WL 1423296
(4th Cir. Apr. 21, 2017) (dismissed as moot following en banc argument).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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