United States v. Maurilio Morales-Zarate , 588 F. App'x 739 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50089
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00956-BEN-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MAURILIO MORALES-ZARATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50150
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00956-BEN-1
v.
MAURILIO MORALES-ZARATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted November 20, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District
Judge.***
Maurilio Morales-Zarate was charged with illegal reentry following
deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was found incompetent to stand
trial and was ordered hospitalized pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). He later
moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the time limit in § 4241(d)(1)
had expired four months after the district court’s commitment order. The district
court denied the motion. Morales-Zarate appealed from that ruling.
After that appeal was filed, the government moved to dismiss the charge
against Morales-Zarate. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, but
stayed dismissal until Morales-Zarate was returned to the custody of the U.S.
Attorney General for a dangerousness evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246.
Morales-Zarate appealed from that commitment order, as well.
Because the charge against Morales-Zarate has been dismissed and he has
been released from custody and removed to Mexico, his appeals are moot.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
2
Morales-Zarate has already obtained the relief he seeks in his appeal, namely
dismissal of the charge against him and release from custody. See Foster v.
Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2003). The alleged violations are not “capable
of repetition yet evading review,” because Morales-Zarate is not likely to face the
same injury again. See United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005, 1009–10 (9th Cir.
2007). Morales-Zarate has not challenged an established government policy on
behalf of others who might be subject to similar violations. See United States v.
Brandau, 578 F.3d 1064, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009).
DISMISSED.
3