Opinion
No. 19-12163
10-07-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERGIO LUIS HILARIO-CANA, Defendant-Appellant.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00008-RWS-JCF-1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Sergio Hilario-Cana appeals his sentence of eight months of imprisonment for unlawfully reentering the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Hilario-Cana challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After the parties submitted their briefs, the Bureau of Prisons released Hilario-Cana from custody. We dismiss Hilario-Cana's appeal as moot.
We consider sua sponte whether Hilario-Cana's appeal is moot. "[B]ecause the question of mootness is jurisdictional in nature, it may be raised by the court sua sponte, regardless of whether the district court considered it or if the parties briefed the issue." Nat'l Advert. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329, 1331-32 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the issue of mootness. Id. at 1331.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to actual cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. An appeal becomes moot when it no longer presents a "live" controversy or a ruling on the issues would have no practical significance. See Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002). "[P]ut another way, a case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief." Id. (quoting Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216-17 (11th Cir. 2000)). In such a circumstance, "dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional." Id. (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Hilario-Cana's challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is moot. "In criminal cases, . . . a defendant wishing to continue his appeal after the expiration of his sentence must suffer some 'continuing injury' or 'collateral consequence' sufficient to satisfy Article III." United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998)). Hilario-Cana's only argument on appeal is that his sentence of imprisonment for eight months is substantively unreasonable, but he has already served that sentence of imprisonment. So we can provide Hilario-Cana no meaningful relief and his appeal is moot.
We DISMISS Hilario-Cana's appeal.