United States v. Fabian Santillan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50303 · 2016-02-09 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Marsha S. Berzon (author), Gould, Steeh

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 09 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50303 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-3519-BEN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* FABIAN SANTILLAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and STEEH,** Senior District Judge.

Fabian Santillan appeals from the revocation of supervised release and eleven-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Following argument and submission of the appeal, the government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness based on the fact that Santillan completed his sentence on January 11, 2016, and was released from custody.

Mootness of a pending appeal deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to continue hearing that appeal. McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that a case or controversy “must exist at all stages of the proceedings, including appellate review”). We agree that the appeal is moot because Santillan has fully served his custodial sentence and is not subject to an additional term of supervised release. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14, (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.