Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02046/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Tiberio Toro
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . F I L E D 

TENTH CIRCUIT Umted States Court of .Appeals 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MANUEL TIBERIO TORO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth Ci!'cuit 

NOV 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2046 

(D.C. No. CR 83-210 M) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f)~ 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Manuel Tiberio Toro appeals from the district 

court order denying his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his 

sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2255. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 84l(a)(l) 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2046 Document: 010110051361 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
and 18 u.s.c. S 2 in 1984. There was a plea agreement in which 

the maximum sentence was set out as ten years, but with a 

provision that there was no agreement with respect to any special 

parole term that the court might impose. IR. tab 11 at 1. At 

the hearing at which the plea was accepted, the court advised 

petitioner that the maximum penalty "would be fifteen years and a 

twenty-five thousand dollars [sic] fine with a special parole term 

of at least three years." Id. tab .23 at 5. The court then asked 

petitioner whether he had been advised what the maximum penalty 

could be, to which petitioner answered "Yes, sir." · Id. 

Thereafter, the court sentenced petitioner to ten years plus the 

mandatory three-year parole term required by law. See 21 u.s.c. 

S 84l(b)(l)(A) (imposing mandatory special parole term of at least 

three years) (amended 1986, 1988). 

Several years after petitioner filed an unsuccessful motion 

for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, he 

filed the instant motion to vacate, set aside or correct his 

sentence. The magistrate recoDDDended denial; the district court 

accepted the recoDDDendation, leading to the instant appeal. 

Petitioner here argues that his guilty plea was involuntary 

because he was not advised by his attorney, the prosecutor, or the 

court of the mandatory parole term and he states that he did not 

have actual knowledge of it. He argues, therefore, that his 

guilty plea was not voluntary and intelligent. On appeal, 

however, petitioner does not challenge the underlying conviction 

nor does he request that his plea be set aside. Rather, he asks 

this court to order specific performance, requesting that the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2046 Document: 010110051361 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2 
special parole term be deleted from the imposed ten-year sentence. 

See Brief of Appellant at 19. 

It appears that since the filing of the instant motion 

petitioner has been released from prison and deported to Colombia. 

I R. tab 32 at 1. Thus he is no longer within the jurisdiction 

nor subject to the technical custody of the United States Parole 

Commission; he is not being supervised. Unless he re-enters the 

United States, the special parole term will have no effect upon 

him. 

We are in agreement with the government that petitioner's 

appeal is moot. Under certain circumstances, deportation alone 

may moot a habeas petition. See, !t.:.9.:.., Quezada v. I.N.S., 898 

F.2d 474, 476 (5th Cir. 1990) (deportation moots habeas petition 

challenging deportation itself); Terrado v. Moyer, 820 F.2d 920, 

922 (7th Cir. 1987) (same). In Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 

(1982), the Supreme Court held that a habeas petition seeking 

specific performance of a plea agreement is moot if the defendant 

already has served the underlying sentence. See id•. at 630-31. 1 

Although petitioner's three year special parole term has not yet 

expired, he essentially has served his entire sentence; he has 

been deported to Colombia and he is no longer under the 

1 The Lane Court noted that a habeas petition would not be moot 

in such a case if petitioner sought to eliminate all consequences 

flowing from the conviction by requesting an opportunity to plead 

anew. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. at 630. Like the 

petitioners in Lane, however, the instant petitioner has not asked 

this court to set aside his guilty plea. See Brief of Appellant 

at 19 ("Petitioner Toro requests specific performance of his 

agreed upon plea-sentence agreement, specifically, that the 

special parole term be deleted from the imposed ten year 

sentence."). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2046 Document: 010110051361 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 3 
' 

supervision of the United States Parole Commission. Accordingly, 

we do not consider this to be a live controversy. Should 

petitioner return to the United States and become subject to the 

territorial jurisdiction of the Parole Commission, then he may 

renew his motion. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2046 Document: 010110051361 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 4