USA v. Hall, No. 08-50334 (5th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 08-50334 Document: 00511604715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-50334 Summary Calendar September 16, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEVENSTON HALL, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CR-6-ALL Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Levenston Hall, federal prisoner # 82299-080, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court s order granting his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he sought a reduction in his sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine) and distribution of crack cocaine. The district court reduced his sentences to 188 months of imprisonment pursuant to recent amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 08-50334 Document: 00511604715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2011 No. 08-50334 The website of the Bureau of Prisons shows that Hall was released from prison on September 3, 2010. Where a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot. United States v. Booker, 645 F.3d 328, 328 (5th Cir. 2011). Here, as with the defendant in Booker, Hall makes no mention of his term of supervised release and does not argue that it should be terminated; his arguments pertain only to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Any termination of supervised release must be sought by a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Booker, 645 F.3d at 328. IT IS ORDERED that Hall s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as unnecessary and the appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.