Case Name: Gregg Leon CRAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-27
Citations: 401 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 09-35645
Parties: Gregg Leon CRAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
Gregg Leon CRAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-35645.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.
Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
Stephen R. Sady, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Gregg Leon Crampton moves to dismiss as moot his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and his appeal of the district court's denial of the same, and to vacate the district court's order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The government agrees to the dismissal but argues that the district court's order should not be vacated.
It is undisputed that because Crampton was resentenced on February 2, 2010 to a consecutive sentence of 96 months, this appeal and the underlying petition are moot. Furthermore, because Crampton's petition has become moot by the "happenstance" of a separate court judgment involving distinct legal issues not raised in this appeal, vacatur is appropriate. See Alvarez v. Smith, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 576, 581-83, 175 L.Ed.2d 447 (2009). We grant Crampton's motion to dismiss, vacate the district court's order of June 26, 2009, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.