Court Opinion

ID: 9957459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 16:01:16.014002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:23.406245
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12252    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/04/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12252
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MARTINEZ WILLIAMS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00147-MLB-AJB-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12252     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/04/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12252

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Martinez Williams appeals the district court’s order sentenc-
       ing him to 11 months’ imprisonment upon revoking his term of
       supervised release. Because Williams has now completed his sen-
       tence, we asked the parties if the appeal is moot. Upon review of
       the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question,
       we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
               Williams’s appellate brief challenges his now-expired sen-
       tence. However, any challenge to his sentence has been rendered
       moot by its completion because he has failed to show that he is
       subject to collateral consequences stemming from the expired sen-
       tence. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011)
       (holding that, to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy require-
       ment, a defendant who wishes to continue his appeal after the ex-
       piration of his sentence must show a “continuing injury” or “col-
       lateral consequence”); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 3, 14-17 (1998)
       (holding that a habeas petitioner’s challenge to his parole revoca-
       tion was moot, where he had already served the underlying sen-
       tence and failed to show sufficient collateral consequences stem-
       ming from the revocation); United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557,
       1568 (11th Cir. 1991) (dismissing as moot a defendant’s sentencing
       issue on direct appeal because he had completed his sentence and
       had not “advanced any argument that ‘there may be benefits . . . in
       having his sentence reduced after he has already served [it]’”).
USCA11 Case: 23-12252      Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 04/04/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-12252               Opinion of the Court                      3

               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
       tion.