Case ID: f-appx_706/html/0187-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Salvador ORTIZ-CHAVIRA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40470
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed December 13, 2017
    
      Andrew R. Gould, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges, and STARRETT, District Judge.
    
    
      
       District Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.
    
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

The court grants rehearing, withdraws its previous opinion in this matter, United States v. Ortiz-Chavira, 873 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2017), and substitutes the following.

Jose Salvador Ortiz-Chavira (“Ortiz-Chavira”) challenges his term of imprisonment, arguing the district court erroneously applied a 12-level sentencing enhancement based on a previous burglary conviction under Texas law. Before this court issued its opinion, Ortiz-Chavira completed his term of imprisonment on September 1, 2017, and was deported that same day. In view of the foregoing, both parties agree that this appeal is moot. See United States v. Mejia-Hernandez, 668 Fed.Appx. 555, 556 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 342 n.3 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (distinguishing “cases largely involv[ing] situations in which a defendant had completed his term of imprisonment and been deported, yet was still trying to challenge the term of imprisonment on the ground that the term of supervised release had not yet expired”).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.'4.