Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-09
Citations: 636 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 15-50303
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and STEEH, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 636
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50303.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2015.
Filed Feb. 9, 2016.
Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Lawrence E. Spong, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Wade Pritchard, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and STEEH, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fabian Santillan appeals from the revocation of supervised release and eleven-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Following argument and submission of the appeal, the government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness based on the fact that Santillan completed his sentence on January 11, 2016, and was released from custody.
Mootness of a pending appeal deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to continue hearing that appeal. McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that a case or controversy "must exist at all stages of the proceedings, including appellate review"). We agree that the appeal is moot because San-tillan has fully served his custodial sentence and is not subject to an additional term of supervised release. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43, (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.