USA v. Jose Ortiz-Chavira, No. 16-40470 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 6, 2017.
Download PDF
Case: 16-40470 Document: 00514272177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-40470 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 13, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE SALVADOR ORTIZ-CHAVIRA, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-806 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges, and STARRETT, District Judge.* PER CURIAM:** The court grants rehearing, withdraws its previous opinion in this matter, United States v. Ortiz-Chavira, 873 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2017), and substitutes the following. * District Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-40470 Document: 00514272177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2017 No. 16-40470 Jose Salvador Ortiz-Chavira (“Ortiz-Chavira”) challenges his term of imprisonment, arguing the district court erroneously applied a 12–level sentencing enhancement based on a previous burglary conviction under Texas law. Before this court issued its opinion, Ortiz-Chavira completed his term of imprisonment on September 1, 2017, and was deported that same day. In view of the foregoing, both parties agree that this appeal is moot. See United States v. Mejia-Hernandez, 668 F. App’x 555, 556 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 342 n.3 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (distinguishing “cases largely involv[ing] situations in which a defendant had completed his term of imprisonment and been deported, yet was still trying to challenge the term of imprisonment on the ground that the term of supervised release had not yet expired”). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 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.
