United States v. Pipkins ( 2020 )

Case: 20-40319 Document: 00515688910 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 30, 2020
No. 20-40319
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
DeWayne Karl Pipkins,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-CR-4-2
Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
DeWayne Karl Pipkins, federal prisoner # 08515-078, moves for
appointment of counsel in this appeal from the district court’s order denying
in part and granting in part his motion seeking a reduction in his sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine
base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a), pursuant to section 404 of the First Step
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40319 Document: 00515688910 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2020
No. 20-40319
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). The district court
determined that Pipkins was eligible for the reduction, denied the motion in
part with respect to Pipkins’s 292-month term of incarceration, and granted
the motion in part by reducing his term of supervised release from five years
to four years.
We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if
necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The website
of the Bureau of Prisons shows that Pipkins was released from prison on
December 26, 2020. Because Pipkins has been released from prison and
because his four-year term of supervised release is the mandatory minimum
term, there is no relief which this court could grant should Pipkins prevail.
See United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en
banc). Therefore, Pipkins’s appeal from the order denying in part and
granting in part his motion for a reduction in sentence is moot. See id.; see
also United States v. Booker, 645 F.3d 328, 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion).
Pipkins’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as
unnecessary and the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
2