Manuel Aldaco v. Cheron Nash, Warden, No. 16-50347 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-50347 Document: 00514072424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50347 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MANUEL ALDACO, Petitioner-Appellant v. CHERON NASH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:15-CV-793 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Aldaco, former federal prisoner # 80147-080, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In his § 2241 petition, Aldaco claimed that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to properly credit him for time served, as ordered by the sentencing court, and he sought an immediate release to a 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50347 Document: 00514072424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2017 No. 16-50347 residential reentry center or a community corrections center to serve his supervised release term. During the pendency of this appeal, Aldaco was transferred to a halfway house, and he later was released from the BOP’s custody. The issues Aldaco has raised on appeal have thus been rendered moot by his release. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987). That he is serving a term of supervised release is of no moment. Aldaco did not seek a reduction of his supervised release term pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) in the district court. Further, he does not allude to any future adverse consequences that would give rise to a live case or controversy. See id. at 279. Accordingly, the Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this 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.