Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0343-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Patrick Wayne MCKINLEY, also known as Fat Pat, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40583
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 16, 2011.
    John Malcolm Bales, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Patrick Wayne McKinley, Federal Correctional Institution Edgefield, Edgefield, SC, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Patrick Wayne McKinley, federal prisoner # 08891-078, has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel in this appeal from the district court’s order granting his motion to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment pursuant to recent amendments to the penalties applicable to cocaine base offenses.

The website of the Bureau of Prisons shows that McKinley was released from prison on November 13, 2009. Where a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot. United States v. Booker, 645 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011). Here, as with the defendant in Booker, McKinley makes no mention of his term of supervised release and does not argue that it should be terminated; his arguments pertain only to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Any termination of supervised release must be sought by a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). See Booker 645 F.3d 328.

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.