Manuel Aldaco v. Cheron Nash, Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50347 Dismissed as Moot ] Judge: WED , Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 09/05/2017; granting motion to dismiss appeal filed by Appellee Ms. Cheron Nash [8459417-2] [16-50347]

Case: 16-50347

Document: 00514072424

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/13/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50347
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 13, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

MANUEL ALDACO,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.

CHERON NASH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CV-793
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Manuel Aldaco, former federal prisoner # 80147-080, appeals the
dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. In his § 2241 petition, Aldaco claimed that
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to properly credit him for time served, as
ordered by the sentencing court, and he sought an immediate release to a

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50347

Document: 00514072424

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/13/2017

No. 16-50347
residential reentry center or a community corrections center to serve his
supervised release term.
During the pendency of this appeal, Aldaco was transferred to a halfway
house, and he later was released from the BOP’s custody. The issues Aldaco
has raised on appeal have thus been rendered moot by his release. See Bailey
v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987). That he is serving a term
of supervised release is of no moment. Aldaco did not seek a reduction of his
supervised release term pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) in the district court.
Further, he does not allude to any future adverse consequences that would give
rise to a live case or controversy. See id. at 279.
Accordingly, the Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this
appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

2