Summary
finding that courts may raise the issue of mootness sua sponte
Summary of this case from Brown v. Lexington Cnty.Opinion
No. 16-7160
02-08-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN TEJADA-REVULCABA, Defendant - Appellant.
Juan Tejada-Revulcaba, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:14-cr-00019-H-1) Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Tejada-Revulcaba, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Juan Tejada-Revulcaba appeals the district court's order denying his Motion for Declaratory Relief or Alternatively Immigration Departure. During the pendency of this appeal, Tejada-Revulcaba was released from imprisonment. Upon review, we conclude that his arguments challenging the district court's denial of his motion are now moot. See Friedman's, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) ("[W]hether we are presented with a live case or controversy is a question we may raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED