United States v. Albert Iaquinta , 701 F. App'x 271 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT F. IAQUINTA,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:98-hc-00764-BR)
Submitted: October 31, 2017 Decided: November 13, 2017
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Dodson, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert F. Iaquinta, who is currently committed to the custody of the Attorney
General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a) (2012), filed a pro se motion in the district court
arguing that the order of commitment was void, seeking release, requesting the court stay
the proceedings, and seeking a hearing to determine whether he was eligible for
conditional release. The district court denied relief on Iaquinta’s motion and he timely
appealed. Thereafter, counsel for Iaquinta filed a motion for a hearing to determine
whether Iaquinta was eligible for conditional release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h)
(2012), and the district court granted the motion. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the appeal is
moot as the district court has granted Iaquinta a hearing to determine whether he should
be conditionally released. Iaquinta has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional
issues. * For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.
Counsel questions whether the appeal has been mooted by the district court’s grant
of counsel’s § 4247(h) motion for a hearing to again determine whether Iaquinta is
eligible for conditional release from confinement. “A case becomes moot when the
issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
marks omitted). When a case is moot, a court is deprived of jurisdiction over the case.
*
We have considered the issues raised in Iaquinta’s pro se supplemental brief and
conclude that they lack merit.
2
Id. “Mootness has been described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The
requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation
(standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Simmons v. United
Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
A case can be rendered moot by a change in factual circumstances or a change in
the law. Id. “Generally speaking, one such [factual] circumstance mooting a claim arises
when the claimant receives the relief he or she sought to obtain through the claim.” Id.(internal quotation marks omitted). Here, to the extent Iaquinta sought in his motion a
hearing for conditional release pursuant to § 4247(h), he has received that relief as the
court granted counsel’s motion for such a hearing after Iaquinta filed his notice of appeal.
We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Iaquinta’s pro se
motion for such a hearing.
However, Iaquinta also challenged the original commitment order as void,
asserting that it violated his due process rights. This challenge has not been mooted by
the court’s order granting a hearing under § 4247(h) for conditional release. We have,
however, thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude
that the court did not err in determining that Iaquinta failed to demonstrate that his rights
to due process were violated when he was committed to the custody of the Attorney
General.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of
Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the
3
appeal in part and affirm in part. This court requires that counsel inform Iaquinta, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Iaquinta requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would
be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Iaquinta.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4