USA v. Jayson Moore
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-10187 Dismissed as Moot] Judge: EBC, Judge: ECP, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 04/20/2017; denying as unnecessary motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Christopher W. Lewis [8173525-2] [16-10187]
Date Filed: 03/30/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
March 30, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JAYSON HOWARD MOORE, also known as Jay Mafia,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-533-1
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM: *
Jayson Howard Moore appeals the district court’s commitment and
competency examination order. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), (b), (c); 18 U.S.C.
§ 4247(b), (c). Moore’s appeal is moot. The actions required by the district
court’s order, which is the basis of the appeal, have been completed. Moore
was determined to be incompetent to stand trial, and the district court issued
a new order under § 4241(d) that committed Moore to the custody of the
Attorney General for treatment.
Accordingly, there is neither a live
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 03/30/2017
controversy on which this court can grant relief nor any relief that this court
presently can grant Moore. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996);
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982); see also United States v. Conlan,
520 F. App’x 246, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2013) (dismissing as moot an appeal based
on a claim that the defendant was detained for a competency examination
beyond the time permitted under §§ 4241(b) and 4247(b)); United States v.
Montelongo, No. 94-50398, 1994 WL 442366, at *1 (5th Cir. July 25, 1994)
(unpublished) (dismissing as moot a claim that the defendant was unlawfully
detained for a competency evaluation); 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).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT; counsel’s motion to
withdraw is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
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?