USA v. Hall
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [08-50334 Dismissed as Moot] Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 10/07/2011 for Appellant Levenston Hall; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Mr. Levenston Hall [6117415-2] [08-50334]
Date Filed: 09/16/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
September 16, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CR-6-ALL
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Levenston Hall, federal prisoner # 82299-080, moves for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s order granting his
motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he sought a reduction in his
sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine)
and distribution of crack cocaine. The district court reduced his sentences to 188
months of imprisonment pursuant to recent amendments to the crack cocaine
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 09/16/2011
The website of the Bureau of Prisons shows that Hall was released from
prison on September 3, 2010. “Where a defendant has begun serving a term of
supervised release, the appeal of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.”
United States v. Booker, 645 F.3d 328, 328 (5th Cir. 2011). Here, as with the
defendant in Booker, Hall “makes no mention of his term of supervised release
and does not argue that it should be terminated; his arguments pertain only to
relief under § 3582(c)(2). Any termination of supervised release must be sought
by a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).” Booker, 645 F.3d at 328.
IT IS ORDERED that Hall’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as
unnecessary and the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
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?