Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAM MING CHIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 193 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 05-50051
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. KAM MING CHIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. KAM MING CHIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50051.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 28, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., David K. Willingham, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Johns, Esq., Johns & Allyn A. Professional Corporation, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kam Ming Chin, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. A review of the record indicates that the appeal is moot because the custodial term has ended and Appellant was not sentenced to a term of supervised release to follow his custodial sentence. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). We reject Appellant's contention that his appeal is not moot because he demonstrated one of the "exceptional situations" sufficient to avoid application of the mootness doctrine. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.