Opinion
No. 17-35877
11-21-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CASEY DALE MAYER, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. Nos. 6:16-cv-01726-AA 6:05-cr-60072-AA-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Casey Dale Mayer appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Mayer's section 2255 motion challenged the sentence imposed upon resentencing for his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because Mayer has fully served his custodial sentence and is no longer subject to a term of supervised release, the district court properly concluded that his section 2255 motion is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). Contrary to his contention, Mayer has not shown that any exception to the mootness doctrine applies. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8; United States v. King, 891 F.3d 868, 870 (9th Cir. 2018) (where collateral consequences not presumed, petitioner has burden to show he faces them).
We treat Mayer's additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach the government's additional arguments.
AFFIRMED.