USA v. Joshua Conlan


UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [12-50694 Dismissed as Moot] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JWE , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 06/24/2013; granting motion to dismiss appeal filed by Appellee USA [7268776-2]; denying motion to relieve attorney filed by Appellant Mr. Joshua Adam Conlan [7267561-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Joshua Adam Conlan [7267561-3] [12-50694]

Download PDF
Case: 12-50694 Document: 00512260280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-50694 Summary Calendar June 3, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSHUA ADAM CONLAN, also known as Joco, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-451-1 Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joshua Adam Conlan appeals the denial of his motion for immediate release from custody. His motion was based on his having been detained for a competency evaluation beyond the 45 days permitted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and 4247(b). Conlan has since been found incompetent and detained under § 4241(d) for a determination of whether treatment might restore his competency. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-50694 Document: 00512260280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2013 No. 12-50694 The appeal is moot because Conlan is no longer detained under the terms of § 4247(b) but under a later, unchallenged detention order. We can no longer provide relief from the expired detention even if it were unlawful under § 4247(b). See United States v. Montelongo, 32 F.3d 565, 1994 WL 442366, *1 (5th Cir. July 25, 1994) (dismissing as moot a claim that the defendant was unlawfully detained for a competency evaluation); see also 5TH CIR. RULE 47.5.3 (“Unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent.”); McLain v. Beto, 458 F.2d 503, 504 (5th Cir. 1972) (pretermitting the question of whether interlocutory orders were appealable because the appeal was moot). Conlan fails to show that there is a case or controversy raising issues that are “real and substantial and not merely academic or speculative.” Troy State Univ. v. Dickey, 402 F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1968). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Conlan’s motion to relieve present counsel and to appoint new counsel is DENIED. 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?