Case Name: Alexis Milton EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-01
Citations: 126 F. App'x 4
Docket Number: No. 04-1314-PR
Parties: Alexis Milton EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Present: OAKES, KEARSE and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
Alexis Milton EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-1314-PR.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 1, 2005.
Alexis Milton Edwards, (on submission), Leesport, PA, for Petitioner-Appellant, pro se.
Steven Kim, Assistant United States Attorney, for Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (on submission) (F. Franklin Amanat, Varuni Nelson), Brooklyn, NY, for Respondents-Appellees, of counsel.
Present: OAKES, KEARSE and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is VACATED.
Petitioner-Appellant Alexis Milton Edwards ("Edwards") appeals from the judgment of the district court (Gleeson, J.) finding his habeas petition to be moot. In that petition, Edwards challenged certain aspects of his immigration detention as contrary to the statutes and regulations governing Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. During the pendency of this appeal, another panel of this court vacated Edwards's order of removal, and ordered that he be awarded § 212(c) relief. See Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 312 (2d Cir.2004). As a result of this decision, Edwards was released from immigration detention on January 19, 2005. Edwards's release renders the issues presented in this appeal moot, and, we must dismiss his appeal. See New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 969 F.2d 1430, 1433 (2d Cir.1992) (a case which becomes moot during the pendency of an appeal must be dismissed as moot). In accordance with our usual procedure, we VACATE the unreviewed decision of the district court, and remand to that court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action. See, e.g., Perez v. Greiner, 296 F.3d 123, 126-127 & n. 7 (2d Cir.2002). The appeal is DISMISSED. Edwards's motions for the appointment of counsel and requesting oral argument are DENIED as moot.