Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vaughn Maurice WOODEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 673 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 14-50438
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vaughn Maurice WOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vaughn Maurice WOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50438
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph Timothy McNally, Esquire, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Attorney, Karyn H. Bucur, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vaughn Maurice Wooden appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release to the extent it required him to serve six months in a residential reentry center ("RRC") as part of his supervised release term. We dismiss.
Wooden contends the district court procedurally erred by basing the RRC condition on the clearly erroneous finding that Wooden had intentionally violated the previous RRC condition and because the RRC condition allegedly conflicts with the sentencing options presented to Wooden by the district court. Because Wooden has satisfied the six-month RRC condition, and any decision in this appeal would have no effect on the length of his supervised release term, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) ("An appeal is moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.