Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 431 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 872 F.2d 431 (9th Cir. 1989)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Francisco REY-LAVANDERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1342.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  Jan. 20, 1989.Decided March 28, 1989.

Before CHOY, ALARCON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Francisco Rey-Lavandera pleaded guilty to and was convicted of a count of conspiracy to import marijuana. He appeals contending that his sentence was unconstitutional and an abuse of discretion. We dismiss his appeal as moot.

Because mootness is an element of justiciability and raises a question of jurisdiction, this court may consider the issue though neither party has raised it. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam).

A case is moot if this court cannot grant effective relief to the litigants, and this court has no jurisdiction to hear such a case. Aguirre v. S.S. Sohio Intrepid, 801 F.2d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 1986). An appeal challenging the imposition of a sentence is moot if the sentence has expired, and correcting the sentence would not have collateral consequences. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631-32 (1982); Brady v. United States Parole Commission, 600 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir. 1979) (appeal from length of incarceration moot once parole is granted).

Here, Rey-Lavandera has already served the sentence which he challenges and has been deported to Mexico. Therefore, even if we decided to reduce Rey-Lavandera's sentence that could not affect his current status.

Nor would a reduction in sentence have a collateral effect on Rey-Lavandera's status under immigration laws. A conviction for a drug related offense is ground for deportation regardless of the sentence served. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(11). Thus, a reduction of Rey-Lavandera's sentence could not affect his deportability status.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3