Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro Urbina RAMIREZ, a/k/a Jesus Salvador Vega-Geronimo, a/k/a Ramiro Urbana, a/k/a Jesus Salvador Vega, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-1281.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    June 10, 2009.
    Michael C. Johnson, Hayley Reynolds, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Virginia L. Grady, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
    Before O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

This matter is before the court following our receipt of notice that Appellant Ramiro Urbma Ramirez was removed to Mexico on March 17, 2009. We directed the parties to respond in writing whether this appeal is moot. On May 4, 2009, the government filed its response confirming that Mr. Ramirez was removed from the United States and requesting dismissal on the grounds of mootness. See United States v. Vera-Flores, 496 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir.2007). Counsel for Mr. Ramirez does not dispute the factual or legal basis of the government’s position and does not oppose the motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record, the parties’ materials, and the relevant legal authority, and we agree that this matter is moot.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.