Case ID: f-appx_490/html/0656-01.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 GUEVARRA-BONILLA, also known as Jose Milton Bonilla-Guevara, also known as Jose Bonilla, also known as Milton Espinal-Hernandes, also known as Jose Guevara-Bonilla, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-51185
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2012.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Guevarra-Bonilla (Guevarra) pleaded guilty of illegal reentry following deportation and was sentenced to a 10-month term of imprisonment and to a three year period of supervised release. Guevarra has appealed, contending that the district court erred in overruling his objection to the imposition of a term of supervised release.

The parties have advised the court that Guevarra has completed his term of imprisonment and has been removed to Honduras. For that reason, they concede, the appeal is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir.2007). We agree.

The appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. See Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d at 383. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Gueverra nonetheless noted his contention that Rosenbaum-Alanis conflicts with United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293, 294 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457 (1971), in order to preserve that argument for possible Supreme Court review.