#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavio SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10279 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 4, 2017)

Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Ocala, FL, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Rachel K, Jones, Adam M. Saltz-man, Sara C. Sweeney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark W. Ciaravella, Mark W. Ciaravel-la, PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant,

Octavio Sanchez, McRae, GA, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Octavio Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction, under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The government has moved to dismiss Sanchez’s appeal as moot because he has served his term of imprisonment and has been removed from the United States. We carried the govern*595ment’s motion with the ease and ordered the parties to address the issue of mootness in their remaining briefs.

We must examine our own jurisdiction *sua sponte,*and review jurisdictional issues *de novo. United States v, Lopez,*562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009).

A case becomes moot on appeal when “it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” *United States v. Al-Arian,*514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir; 2008) (quoting *Najjar v. Ashcroft,*273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)). Thus, the key question in determining mootness is whether events have occurred that deprive a court of the ability to grant meaningful relief. *Id.*Where a convict’s sentence has expired, there must be some “collateral consequence” of the conviction, other than his incarceration itself, to maintain his suit. *Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). However, a convict’s injury may not be contingent upon his later breaking the law and being caught and convicted. *Id.*at 15, 118 S.Ct. 978 (rejecting the argument that parole revocation was a collateral consequence of his conviction because it could be used to enhance a future sentence). When the defendant challenges the underlying conviction, a collateral consequence is presumed. *United States v. Juvenile Male,*564 U.S. 932, 936, 131 S.Ct. 2860, 180 L.Ed.2d 811 (2011). However, where a defendant challenges only an expired sentence, no such presumption applies, and “the defendant must bear the burden of identifying some ongoing ‘collateral consequence]’ that is ‘traceable’ to the challenged portion of the sentence and ‘likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” *Id.*(quotation omitted) (alteration in original).

In an appeal of a sentence by the government, we have determined that the defendant’s deportation did not moot the government’s appeal of the defendant’s sentence of probation. *United States v. Orrega,*363 F.3d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 2004). We noted that the possibility of the defendant reentering the United States was speculative but nevertheless sufficed .to maintain a live case. *Id.*

Sanchez has not met his burden of showing an ongoing collateral consequence of the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction that likely would be redressed by a favorable judicial ruling since he has served his imprisonment sentence and been deported. *See Juvenile Male,*564 U.S. at 936, 131 S.Ct. 2860. Sanchez did not respond to the government’s motion to dismiss and did not file a reply addressing mootness. Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED.