US v. Juan Tejada-Revulcaba


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cr-00019-H-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000019661]. Mailed to: Juan Tejada-Revulcaba. [16-7160]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7160 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7160 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN TEJADA-REVULCABA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:14-cr-00019-H-1) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 8, 2017 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Tejada-Revulcaba, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7160 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/08/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Juan denying Tejada-Revulcaba his Motion for appeals the Declaratory district Relief or court’s order Alternatively Immigration Departure. During the pendency of this appeal, TejadaRevulcaba was released from imprisonment. Upon review, we conclude that his arguments challenging the district court’s denial of his motion are now moot. 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 of the courts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?