Roberts v. Casterline , 220 F. App'x 286 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-31109
Summary Calendar
MARK H. ROBERTS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL CASTERLINE,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:03-CV-1385
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark H. Roberts, federal prisoner # 81411-071, filed an
application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
district court challenging several aspects of his parole
proceedings. On April 1, 2005, the district court granted
relief in part, ruling that Roberts should receive access to his
prison file 60 days prior to his next parole hearing, which was
scheduled for November 2006. According to the record, Roberts
received and reviewed the entirety of his file in September 2005.
In October 2005, Roberts moved the district court to amend its
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-31109
-2-
judgment, asserting that the court had intended that he receive a
new parole hearing after he received access to the documents. In
an order dated November 16, 2005, the district court denied the
motion, reasoning that it had intended only that Roberts receive
the file in advance of the next hearing scheduled by the parole
commission.
Roberts appeals the district court’s November 16, 2005,
order, seeking to correct the district court’s alleged mistake in
failing to grant a new parole hearing. Nothing filed by Roberts
or in the record indicates that the scheduled parole hearing of
November 2006 did not occur. Because the date of the scheduled
hearing has passed, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal
because the issue raised is moot. See In re Scruggs, 392 F.3d
124, 128 (5th Cir. 2004).
APPEAL DISMISSED.