Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Patrick COUCH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-15
Citations: 695 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 16-16361 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Patrick COUCH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 532–532

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Patrick COUCH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-16361 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(August 15, 2017)
Christopher B. Brinson, Adam W. Over-street, Christopher John Bodnar, Kenyen Ray Brown, Deborah A. Griffin, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jackson Roger Sharman, III, Jeffrey Paul Doss, Robert J. Sewell, Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Arthur T. Powell, III, Arthur T Powell III, PC, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant
Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Patrick Couch, M.D., filed an interlocutory appeal seeking the reversal of the district court's denial of his motion to vacate several pretrial warrants, arguing that the government improperly seized certain of his assets. After Dr. Couch filed his appeal, his case proceeded to trial. Dr; Couch was ultimately convicted of several conspiracy and narcotics charges related to a scheme to distribute controlled substances under the guise of maintaining a pain management facility. Following his convictions, Dr. Couch and the government entered into a forfeiture agreement stipulating that Dr. Couch was voluntarily forfeiting the related assets and that the government had established the necessary connection between the forfeited assets and his illegal acts. The district court subsequently entered a preliminary order of forfeiture.
Upon review of the record, the parties' briefs, and their responses to our latest jurisdictional question, we agree with the parties that this appeal is now moot. As a result, we dismiss Dr. Couch's appeal. See United States v. Serrapio, 754 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th. Cir. 2014) ("A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.") (quoting Knox v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012)).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.