Court Opinion

ID: 4156023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-28 16:01:05.316721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:39.626480
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                  Tenth Circuit

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 28, 2017
                                                              Elisabeth A. Shumaker
                               TENTH CIRCUIT                      Clerk of Court

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                                     No. 16-1061
                                             (D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00329-WYD-1)
                                                         (D. Colo.)
 JIMMY JOEL
 HERNANDEZ-BANEGA, a/k/a Jimmy
 Cruz, a/k/a Jimmy Diaz, a/k/a Jimmy
 Diaz-Cruz,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                                      ORDER

Before HOLMES, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

      Defendant-Appellant Jimmy Joel Hernandez-Banega challenges his twenty-

month term of imprisonment and three-year period of supervised release. He

argues that the district court improperly applied a twelve-level sentencing

enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B).

      On March 15, 2017, however, the government filed a notice advising our

court that Mr. Hernandez-Banega was deported to Honduras following completion

of the custodial portion of his sentence. Although Mr. Hernandez-Banega

remains legally subject to a term of supervised release, his deportation means that
he “has no obligation to report to a probation officer and is not under the

supervision or control of the United States Probation Office.” United States v.

Vera-Flores, 496 F.3d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Hernandez-Banega’s

removal has therefore “eliminated all practical consequences associated with

serving a term of supervised release,” id. at 1181, and he has no “actual injury

which this court can remedy,” id. at 1182. Similarly, Mr. Hernandez-Banega “has

failed to demonstrate the presence of collateral consequences arising from any

alleged errors the . . . district court made during [his] sentencing proceeding.” Id.

And the mere possibility of his reentry (along with the attendant revival of his

obligation to comply with his supervised-release conditions) is too speculative to

avoid dismissal for mootness. See id. at 1181–82.

      Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez-Banega’s removal has rendered this appeal

moot. See id. at 1182 (dismissing an appeal on mootness grounds following

deportation); see also United States v. Pena-Flores, 240 F. App’x 281, 283 (10th

Cir. 2007) (same), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1281 (2008). Therefore, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

                                       Entered for the Court,

                                       ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

                                          2