Opinion
15-3572-cr
09-18-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JAMES WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
FOR APPELLANT: Edward S. Zas, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY. FOR APPELLEES: John J. Durham (Susan Corkery on the brief), for Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
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 18th day of September, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. Circuit Judges.
FOR APPELLANT:
Edward S. Zas, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY.
FOR APPELLEES:
John J. Durham (Susan Corkery on the brief), for Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Wilson's appeal is DISMISSED.
James Wilson appeals the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J.) denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
During the course of this appeal, Wilson completed his term of incarceration and was released from prison. Once a prisoner is released, a challenge to the sentence is generally rendered moot. See United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 479 (2d Cir. 2007). In particular, an appeal from an order denying a sentence reduction is generally mooted by a prisoner's release. See United States v. Key, 602 F.3d 492, 494-95 (2d Cir. 2010).
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, Wilson was released on May 10, 2017.
There are circumstances in which a prisoner's release does not moot an appeal of a sentence, notably when there is a non-trivial possibility that "the district court could or would impose a reduced term of supervised release were we to remand for resentencing." Id. at 494 (alterations omitted) (quoting Williams, 475 F.3d at 479). But Wilson challenges only the district court's refusal to reduce his term of imprisonment. Because Wilson has completed his term of imprisonment and has been released, this appeal is moot.
Even if Wilson had raised a question as to the term of his supervised release, we would still find his claim moot, as the chance of the district court reducing his term of supervised release would be too speculative. See Key, 602 F.3d at 495. --------
For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Wilson's other arguments, we hereby DISMISS.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK