Case: 19-12163 Date Filed: 10/07/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12163
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00008-RWS-JCF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
SERGIO LUIS HILARIO-CANA,
Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 7, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12163 Date Filed: 10/07/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Sergio Hilario-Cana appeals his sentence of eight months of imprisonment
for unlawfully reentering the United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Hilario-Cana
challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After the parties
submitted their briefs, the Bureau of Prisons released Hilario-Cana from custody.
We dismiss Hilario-Cana’s appeal as moot.
We consider sua sponte whether Hilario-Cana’s appeal is moot. “[B]ecause
the question of mootness is jurisdictional in nature, it may be raised by the court
sua sponte, regardless of whether the district court considered it or if the parties
briefed the issue.” Nat’l Advert. Co. v. City of Miami,
402 F.3d 1329, 1331–32
(11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the issue of mootness.
Id. at 1331.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to actual cases and
controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. An appeal becomes moot when it no
longer presents a “live” controversy or a ruling on the issues would have no
practical significance. See Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS,
296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th
Cir. 2002). “[P]ut another way, a case is moot when it no longer presents a live
controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.”
Id.
(quoting Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Health and Rehab.
Servs.,
225 F.3d 1208, 1216–17 (11th Cir. 2000)). In such a circumstance,
“dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional.”
Id. (quoting Al Najjar v.
Ashcroft,
273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)).
2
Case: 19-12163 Date Filed: 10/07/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Hilario-Cana’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is
moot. “In criminal cases, . . . a defendant wishing to continue his appeal after the
expiration of his sentence must suffer some ‘continuing injury’ or ‘collateral
consequence’ sufficient to satisfy Article III.” United States v. Juvenile Male,
564
U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (citing Spencer v. Kemna,
523 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1998)). Hilario-
Cana’s only argument on appeal is that his sentence of imprisonment for eight
months is substantively unreasonable, but he has already served that sentence of
imprisonment. So we can provide Hilario-Cana no meaningful relief and his appeal
is moot.
We DISMISS Hilario-Cana’s appeal.
3
