United States v. Lundahl, No. 21-8045 (10th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellate Case: 21-8045 Document: 010110574319 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 10, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOLLI TELFORD LUNDAHL, No. 21-8045 (D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00048-NDF-1) (D. Wyo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Holli Lundahl was indicted on three counts of health care fraud and aiding and abetting health care fraud, and two counts of aggravated identify theft. A jury found Ms. Lundahl guilty on all counts on May 3, 2021. After the jury rendered its verdict, the district court ordered Ms. Lundahl to be detained pending sentencing, holding that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of any * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-8045 Document: 010110574319 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 2 other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Ms. Lundahl has appealed that determination. On August 25, 2021, however, the district court sentenced Ms. Lundahl to 36 months in prison and committed her to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. Ms. Lundahl’s appeal of her pre-sentencing detention is therefore moot, and it is hereby dismissed. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 891 (10th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the “inability to grant effective relief renders [an] issue moot”); see also Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam) (holding appeal concerning defendant’s right to pretrial bail was mooted by defendant’s conviction); United States v. O’Shaughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (holding appeal concerning defendant’s right to pretrial bail was mooted by defendant’s conviction and sentence). We deny all other pending motions. Entered for the Court Per Curiam 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.
