Case Name: Michael Wayne HARKNESS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-20
Citations: 255 F. App'x 841
Docket Number: No. 07-10444
Parties: Michael Wayne HARKNESS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
Michael Wayne HARKNESS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-10444
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2007.
Michael Wayne Harkness, Mineral Wells, TX, pro se.
Gretchen Berumen Merenda, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Postconviction Litigation Div, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Wayne Harkness, former Texas prisoner # 1235550, pleaded guilty to felo ny driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to four years of imprisonment. Harkness now seeks a certifícate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of mandatory supervision.
During the pendency of this appeal, Harkness was released from prison to mandatory supervision. As a result, Harkness's due process claim challenging the denial of § 2254 petition has been rendered moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED; COA MOTION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.