Court Opinion

ID: 9904841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 01:00:38.534613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.161218
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50827        Document: 00516979252             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/27/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50827
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                             November 27, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Ojin Kim,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:21-CV-250
                              USDC No. 7:17-CR-183-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Ojin Kim, former federal prisoner # 30806-479, challenges the district
   court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (person in federal custody may
   move to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence).               Our court granted a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50827      Document: 00516979252           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                     No. 22-50827

   certificate of appealability (COA) for “his claim that his trial counsel was
   ineffective at sentencing” and denied a COA for his other claims.
          The Government contends this appeal is moot because Kim’s
   sentence has fully expired. “Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional
   matter, [because] it implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live
   case or controversy.” Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.
   1987). “Under Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, to invoke the
   jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened
   with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by
   a favorable judicial decision.” United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337,
   340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citation omitted).
          While in custody, Kim filed his § 2255 motion. But, the case-or-
   controversy requirement is distinct from the earlier-referenced § 2255 “in
   custody” requirement. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (evaluating
   case-or-controversy requirement after establishing defendant met § 2255 “in
   custody” requirement). The former “subsists through all stages of federal
   judicial proceedings, trial and appellate”. Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494
   U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “The parties must continue to have a personal stake
   in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Id. at 78 (citation omitted).
          “In criminal cases, [the case-or-controversy] requirement means [,
   inter alia,] that a defendant wishing to continue his appeals after the
   expiration of his sentence must suffer some ‘continuing injury’ or ‘collateral
   consequence’ sufficient to satisfy Article III.” United States v. Juv. Male, 564
   U.S. 932, 936 (2011). Accordingly, a defendant challenges only an expired
   sentence, he has the burden of identifying an ongoing collateral consequence
   that is traceable to the challenged portion of the sentence and would likely be
   redressed by a favorable judicial decision. E.g., id.
Case: 22-50827     Document: 00516979252           Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/27/2023

                                    No. 22-50827

          Kim fails to meet his burden. In his opening brief, he mentions his
   continued pursuit of the appeal is linked to his immigrant status and the
   possibility future immigration proceedings may be predicated on the
   outcome of this action. Kim provides, however, no briefing on whether: he
   has been placed in immigration proceedings; any immigration provision
   would apply to him; or the immigration consequence would likely be
   redressed by a favorable decision. See Juv. Male, 564 U.S. at 936 (outlining
   burden for defendant challenging only expired sentence). “[T]he mere
   possibility of future consequences is too speculative to give rise to a case or
   controversy.” Bailey, 821 F.2d at 279. Therefore, Kim has waived his
   contention by failing to brief it adequately.      E.g., Fed. R. App. P.
   28(a)(8)(A) (requiring appellant’s brief to include contentions and reasons
   for them); United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 647 (5th Cir. 2002)
   (explaining unbriefed issues are waived on appeal). His assertions raising
   other collateral consequences are bare and speculative.
          DISMISSED.