Court Opinion

ID: 9391204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 16:00:44.794673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.197819
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-2678
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                     Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                      Ralph A. Ross, also known as R.A.

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: April 11, 2023
                              Filed: May 1, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Ralph Ross pleaded guilty to one count of misprision of a felony and was
sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. Ross appealed, arguing the district court
relied on disputed allegations from the Presentence Investigation Report when
imposing the sentence. We agreed and remanded for a resentencing to “be
conducted on the existing record.” United States v. Ross, No. 21-2299, 2022 WL
1013983, at *1 (8th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022). On remand, the district court again imposed
a 36-month sentence.

       Ross again appeals, seeking a second remand. He argues that the district
court1 impermissibly relied on factors outside the scope of the first remand when it
imposed a sentence above the calculated advisory Guidelines range of 24–30
months. However, while Ross’s appeal was pending, he was released from custody.
Ross raises no challenge on appeal other than to the length of his custodial sentence,
and he asserts no possible collateral consequences. As a result, this court can grant
Ross no effective relief, and his challenge to the length of his sentence is moot. See
United States v. Aden, 830 F.3d 812, 816–17 (8th Cir. 2016); Owen v. United States,
930 F.3d 989, 990–91 (8th Cir. 2019).

      Ross’s appeal is dismissed as moot.
                       ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
                                       -2-