The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the *

listing of the parties above.

1

07-5707-pr

United States v. Key

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed

on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this

court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation

“summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not

represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on

the 30 day of April, two thousand and ten. th

PRESENT:

ROGER J. MINER,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. No. 07-5707-pr

ROGER KEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR APPELLANT: Roger Key, pro se, Ray Brook, New York.
2

FOR APPELLEE: Nicholas J. Lewin and Michael A. Levy; Assistant United States

Attorneys, and Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney,

Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of

New York, New York, New York.

Appeal from a December 4, 2007 order of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York (Denise Cote, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

Defendant-appellant Roger Key, pro se, appeals from an order of the District Court denying

his request to modify his sentence to reflect the time he spent in federal custody from (a) the date he

was transferred from state to federal custody to (b) the date he was sentenced on federal charges. 

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. 

While this appeal was pending, defendant was released from prison. He is currently serving

a statutory minimum five-year term of supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 

An appellate challenge to a criminal sentence is “rendered moot” when the defendant has

been “release[d] from prison” and when there is either “no possibility” or only a “‘remote and

speculative’” possibility that “the district court could [or would] impose a reduced term of

supervised release were we to remand for resentencing.” United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 479

(2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Blackburn, 461 F.3d 259, 262 (2d Cir. 2006)). Here, as we

discuss in a separately filed opinion addressing a different aspect of this case, see United States v. Key,

No. 08-3218-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2010), even if it would be possible, on remand, for the District

Court to terminate defendant’s supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), that possibility is too

“remote and speculative” to “satisf[y] the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, Section 2

of the Constitution.” Williams, 475 F.3d at 478-79 (quotation marks omitted); accord Blackburn, 461

F.3d at 262. This appeal is therefore moot. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court