IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41166

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CONNIE ANITA JEFFERS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-4

USDC No. 4:07-CR-1-5

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Connie Anita Jeffers, former federal prisoner # 14211-078, pleaded guilty,

pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to

manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. She appeals the district court’s

denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the sentencing judge’s

declaration at her sentencing hearing that she was ineligible for federal benefits

for a period of 10 years. Jeffers claimed in her § 2255 motion that the sentencing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 28, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-41166 Document: 00512003248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2012
No. 10-41166

court erred when it declared her ineligible for federal benefits and that her trial

counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that declaration. 

The district court concluded that Jeffers’ § 2255 claims were barred by the

waiver of appeal and collateral review in her plea agreement.

This court granted a certificate of appealability on four issues, all relating

to the sentencing court’s declaration of Jeffers’ ineligibility for federal benefits. 

After Jeffers filed her appellate brief on those issues, the Government moved for

remand to the district court for clarification of Jeffers’ sentence. This court

granted a limited remand for that purpose. On remand, the district court judge,

who was also the sentencing judge, issued an order on February 8, 2012,

indicating that the penalty of ineligibility for federal benefits was inapplicable

to Jeffers pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 862(e) and was announced during the

sentencing hearing in error. The judge indicated that Jeffers’ written criminal

judgment, which lacked any order declaring Jeffers ineligible for federal benefits,

represented the complete criminal judgment.

After briefing resumed in this court, the Government filed a motion for

summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time for filing a brief. The

Government contends that the district court’s February 8, 2012 order renders

Jeffers’ § 2255 claims moot. Jeffers has not responded to the Government’s

motion.

“Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only

actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494

U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The case-or-controversy requirement is present at all

levels of litigation, from the trial level through the appellate process. Id. at

477-78. An appeal is moot when the court can no longer grant any effectual

relief to the prevailing party. Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537 (5th

Cir. 2008). Mootness is jurisdictional because it implicates the

case-or-controversy requirement under Article III, and we must raise the issue

2

Case: 10-41166 Document: 00512003248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2012
No. 10-41166

of mootness sua sponte if necessary. United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352,

354-55 (5th Cir. 2006).

The relief sought by Jeffers and all of the issues pending in this appeal are

premised on the sentencing court’s declaration of her ineligibility for federal

benefits. Given the district court’s order clarifying that ineligibility for federal

benefits was not part of the punishment imposed against Jeffers, there is no

longer any effectual relief that can be granted to Jeffers in this appeal. Thus,

there is no case or controversy present concerning Jeffers’ § 2255 motion, and

this appeal is moot. See Motient Corp., 529 F.3d at 537.

Having determined that this appeal is moot, we next consider whether the

district court’s judgment denying Jeffers’ § 2255 motion should be vacated. See

Staley v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 485 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Jeffers

did not contribute to the reason the case is now moot. “A party who seeks review

of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of

circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.” U.S.

Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25 (1994). Vacatur is

appropriate in this case. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36,

39-40 (1950); Staley, 485 F.3d at 310.

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s judgment denying Jeffers’

§ 2255 motion and REMAND this case to the district court with instructions to

dismiss the § 2255 motion as moot because the sentencing court has clarified

that Jeffers’ sentence did not include any ineligibility for federal benefits. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of

time to file a brief is DENIED as moot.

3

Case: 10-41166 Document: 00512003248 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/28/2012