Salgado v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 220 F. App'x 256 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                February 22, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-20011
    Summary Calendar
    MARIA CHRISTINA SALGADO
    Petitioner - Appellant
    v.
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
    Respondent - Appellee
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:05-CV-2639
    --------------------
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Maria Christina Salgado, formerly federal prisoner # 13556-
    179, appeals the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
    wherein she argued that cancellation of the Intensive Corrections
    Center (ICC)/Boot Camp program violated the “notice-and-comment”
    requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act, her due process
    rights, and the Ex Post Facto Clause.   Salgado sought a reduction
    in “actual prison time” amounting to her immediate release from
    prison.   The district court denied her petition on the merits.
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    No. 06-20011
    -2-
    Salgado was released from prison while the instant appeal
    was pending.   An appeal is not moot simply because a § 2241
    petitioner is no longer in custody.    Brown v. Resor, 
    407 F.2d 281
    , 283 (5th Cir. 1969).   However, an action is moot when the
    court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party.      See
    Bailey v. Southerland, 
    821 F.2d 277
    , 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding
    that an appeal from the denial of a § 2241 application was moot
    because “[t]he main thrust” of Bailey’s application was to be
    released from confinement, and “[b]ecause Bailey was released . .
    . this court [could] no longer provide him with that relief”);
    see also Willy v. Administrative Review Board, 
    423 F.3d 483
    , 494
    n.50 (5th Cir. 2006) (“If an event occurs that prevents us from
    granting ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party,
    the controversy is moot, and the appeal must be dismissed.”)
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Salgado admits that there were no errors at her sentencing.
    Rather, the main thrust of Salgado’s petition is to be released
    from her confinement based on purported errors that occurred
    after she was sentenced.    See 
    Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278
    .   Salgado’s
    appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-20011

Citation Numbers: 220 F. App'x 256

Judges: King, Higginbotham, Garza

Filed Date: 2/22/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024