Opinion
21-125
03-14-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JOSE A. BRITO, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, AKA Ronald Fermin Ronoso, Defendant-Appellant.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Colleen P. Cassidy, Appeals Bureau, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: Nicholas W. Chiuchiolo, Danielle R. Sassoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, J.).
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Colleen P. Cassidy, Appeals Bureau, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY.
FOR APPELLEE:
Nicholas W. Chiuchiolo, Danielle R. Sassoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
On appeal, Jose A. Brito challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for illegally reentering the United States following his removal subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court imposed a 24-month prison term and no term of supervised release. Brito completed his prison term on September 7, 2021.
When a case becomes moot, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no "live" case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. See Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 171-72 (2013) (citation omitted). Brito's appeal-which challenges only his sentence- is moot because that sentence has been served in full. It would thus be "impossible for the [C]ourt to grant any effectual relief whatever" were Brito to prevail. United States v. Blackburn, 461 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
We have considered the remainder of Brito's arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot.