UNITED STATES v. AGUIRRE SARINANA (2019)

Mario Aguirre-Sarinana was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the United States, and the district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 20 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In his opening brief, he argued that the case should be remanded for correction of judgment to reflect the district court’s recommendation of a facility close to Houston. The Government then filed an unopposed, successful motion to remand the case to correct this error, and the district court corrected the judgment on remand. The Government then filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, or, alternately, an extension of time to file a brief, arguing that summary affirmance is warranted because there are no remaining appellate issues.

This court should always be cognizant of its jurisdiction and examine the issue sua sponte when necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Mootness implicates the Article III case-or-controversy requirement and is thus a jurisdictional matter. United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc). “A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, the requested relief, correction of judgment, may not be granted because the requested correction has been made, and this appeal is moot. See Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d at 340. The appeal is thus DISMISSED AS MOOT, and the Government’s motion for summary disposition or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief, is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.