From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yarber v. Rocha

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 17, 2006
163 F. App'x 530 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Page 531.

Maurice D. Yarber, Fresno, CA, pro se.

Aileen Bunney, AGCA--Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent--Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-03541-CW.

Before: HUG, O'SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Maurice D. Yarber appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

In his petition, Yarber did not challenge the constitutionality of his plea or conviction, and only challenged the constitutionality of the California state court hearing revoking probation and imposing a four-year prison sentence.

We dismiss this appeal as moot because Yarber's sentence has expired, and thus he lacks standing to raise any challenge to the sentence. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). Yarber's contention that his expired sentence will enhance a subsequent sentence is too speculative to create a case or controversy. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14-16, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

All pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Yarber v. Rocha

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 17, 2006
163 F. App'x 530 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

Yarber v. Rocha

Case Details

Full title:Maurice D. YARBER, Petitioner--Appellant, v. Teresa ROCHA, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 17, 2006

Citations

163 F. App'x 530 (9th Cir. 2006)