Case Name: Steven HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Julius WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-11
Citations: 389 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 09-3165
Parties: Steven HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Julius WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: COLE and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; MAYS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 522–522

Head Matter:
Steven HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Julius WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-3165.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 2010.
Before: COLE and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; MAYS, District Judge.
The Honorable Samuel H. Mays, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Steven Hood appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habe-as corpus. Because Hood's period of incarceration has expired, we find the appeal is now moot. See United States v. Waltanen, 356 Fed.Appx. 848, 851 (6th Cir.2009) ("If a prisoner does not challenge the validity of the conviction but rather only challenges his sentence or some aspect of it, the request for relief is moot once the challenged portion of the sentence has expired.") (quoting United States v. Goldberg, 239 Fed.Appx. 993, 994 (6th Cir.2007)). The sole issue before this court is whether Hood's appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge his sentence of incarceration pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006). On February 6, 2006, Hood was sentenced to five years of incarceration, with eligibility for judicial release after serving four years. On February 24, 2010, Hood sent a letter to the court stating that he had been discharged from his prison term on February 22, 2010. Because he has served the challenged portion of his sentence, his petition is DISMISSED as moot.