Case ID: f-appx_673/html/0789-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vaughn Maurice WOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50438
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 23, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph Timothy McNally, Esquire, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Attorney, Karyn H. Bucur, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vaughn Maurice Wooden appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release to the extent it required him to serve six months in a residential reentry center (“RRC”) as part of his supervised release term. We dismiss.

Wooden contends the district court procedurally erred by basing the RRC condition on the clearly erroneous finding that Wooden had intentionally violated the previous RRC condition and because the RRC condition allegedly conflicts with the sentencing options presented to Wooden by the district court. Because Wooden has satisfied the six-month RRC condition, and any decision in this appeal would have no effect on the length of his supervised release term, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (“An appeal is moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.