Richard Valenciano v. Warden FCI Edgefield , 691 F. App'x 126 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                   UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7901
    RICHARD VALENCIANO,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN FCI EDGEFIELD,
    Respondent - Appellee,
    and
    WARDEN THOMAS,
    Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (2:14-cv-01889-RBH)
    Submitted: May 2, 2017                                       Decided: June 6, 2017
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Valenciano, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Valenciano, a former federal prisoner, has appealed the district court’s
    order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. In the petition, he challenged his
    sentence as an armed career criminal, arguing that one of his predicate prior convictions
    was no longer a qualifying violent felony. While this appeal was pending, the United
    States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Valenciano’s authorized
    successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion based on Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    (2015). He was resentenced and released from custody, and he is currently on
    supervised release. “Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sua
    sponte by a federal court at any stage of proceedings.” United States v. Springer, 
    715 F.3d 535
    , 540 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Because Valenciano has already been
    granted the relief that he sought in his § 2241 petition, we conclude that the appeal is
    moot. See also United States v. Surratt, __ F.3d __, No. 14-6851, 
    2017 WL 1423296
    (4th Cir. Apr. 21, 2017) (dismissed as moot following en banc argument).
    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal
    as moot. 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 the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7901

Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 126

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Diaz

Filed Date: 6/6/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024