[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10508

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCOS CAMPOS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20237-RAR-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10508 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10508

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case, the district court issued an order extending the 

time during which appellant Marcos Campos remained committed 

to the Attorney General’s custody. In its order, the district court 

determined that there was a substantial probability that if Campos 

remained committed for an extended time, he would attain the capacity to permit the criminal proceedings against him to move forward. Campos filed an interlocutory appeal. While the appeal was 

pending, the director of the facility where Campos was committed 

determined that he had attained the capacity to permit the criminal 

proceedings to move forward, and he was released from the Attorney General’s custody. The government then moved to dismiss the 

appeal as moot. We GRANT the government’s motion.

I.

Campos was charged with one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. After 

his arrest, he was released on bond. 

While awaiting trial, Campos requested a competency determination. After three psychological evaluations showed that 

Campos was not competent to proceed to trial, the district court 

found that Campos was “presently suffering from a mental disease

or defect that render[ed] him unable to understand the nature and 

consequences of the proceedings against him and unable to assist 

USCA11 Case: 23-10508 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 2 of 6
23-10508 Opinion of the Court 3

properly in his defense.” Doc. 49 at 2.1 The court then ordered 

Campos committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a 

period not to exceed four months for treatment and a determination whether there was a substantial probability that he would attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward. See 

18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1); see also United States v. Donofrio, 896 F.2d 

1301, 1302 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that when a district court 

finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial, “he must be committed to the Attorney General for hospitalization until it can be determined whether a probability exists that the defendant will regain 

the capacity to be tried”). 

Campos was treated and evaluated at the Federal Medical 

Center in Butner, North Carolina (“FMC Butner”). Shortly before

the end of the four-month commitment period, the government 

filed a motion to extend the period of Campos’s commitment. See 

18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2) (permitting defendant to remain in custody 

for an “additional reasonable period of time” if the court finds

“there is a substantial probability that within such additional period 

of time [the defendant] will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward”). The psychologists evaluating Campos 

opined that “with intensive intervention” there was “a substantial 

probability that [Campos’s] competency related skills could improve” if he remained in custody and continued to receive treatment for an additional 120 days. Doc. 61-2 at 20–21.

1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 23-10508 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10508

Campos moved for his immediate release from custody. He

argued that the period of his commitment had expired and should 

not be extended because the government failed to establish a substantial probability that he would attain competency if he remained 

committed for an additional 120 days.

The magistrate judge entered an order granting Campos’s 

motion for immediate release and denying the government’s motion. The magistrate judge found that the government failed to establish by a substantial probability that Campos could be restored 

to competency if he remained committed for an additional 120 

days. Based on the magistrate judge’s order, Campos was released 

from FMC Butner.

The government objected to the magistrate judge’s order. 

The district court concluded that the magistrate judge had “clearly 

erred in finding . . . no substantial probability” that Campos would 

attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward if his 

commitment was extended by 120 days. Doc. 72 at 4. The district 

court set aside the magistrate judge’s order, granted the government’s motion to extend Campos’s treatment period, and denied 

Campos’s motion for immediate release. The district court ordered 

Campos back into the Attorney General’s custody. 

Campos filed this interlocutory appeal, asking this Court to 

reverse the district court’s order extending the period of his commitment. While the appeal was pending, Campos returned to the

Attorney General’s custody and was treated and evaluated at FMC 

Butner for an additional 120-day period. During this period, the 

USCA11 Case: 23-10508 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 4 of 6
23-10508 Opinion of the Court 5

facility director concluded that Campos’s condition had sufficiently 

improved so that his trial could proceed and issued a Certificate of 

Restoration of Competence to Stand Trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e). 

Campos then was released from FMC Butner, and the proceedings 

in district court have continued.

The government has moved to dismiss Campos’s appeal, arguing that it is moot. Campos has filed a notice of non-opposition 

to the motion.

II.

Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the consideration of “Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. 

Const. art. III, § 2. “The doctrine of mootness derives directly from 

the case or controversy limitation because an action that is moot 

cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy.” Soliman

v. United States ex rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A case is moot when the issues 

presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable 

interest in the outcome.” Id. (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f events that occur subsequent to the filing 

of . . . an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the . . . appellant meaningful relief, then the [appeal] is moot and must be 

dismissed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any decision 

on the merits of a moot case or issue would be an impermissible 

advisory opinion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although appellate jurisdiction existed when Campos filed 

his notice of appeal, the appeal has become moot. While the appeal 

USCA11 Case: 23-10508 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10508

was pending, Campos was taken back into the Attorney General’s 

custody and returned to FMC Butner for a second 120-day period 

of treatment and evaluation. During this period, the facility director certified that Campos’s competence had been restored, and 

Campos was released from custody. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e). Because Campos’s extended period of confinement has concluded, 

we cannot grant him any meaningful relief in this appeal from the 

order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for 

an additional 120 days. We thus conclude that we no longer have 

jurisdiction over this appeal.2

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

2 We note that the district court has not yet decided whether Campos is competent to stand trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e) (explaining that after a facility director issues a certification, the district court must “hold a hearing . . . to determine the competency of the defendant”). Nothing in our opinion today addresses the issue of Campos’s competence to stand trial. Instead, we merely

decide that Campos’s appeal from the order extending the period of his commitment is moot. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10508 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 6 of 6