United States v. Robisdel Gonzalez-Abreu, No. 16-4568 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. This opinion is issued by Chief Judge Smith and Judge Colloton pursuant to 8th Cir. R. 47E. Defendant's release from prison mooted his appeal of his sentence; the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4568 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robisdel Gonzalez-Abreu lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen ____________ Submitted: February 12, 2018 Filed: November 5, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.* ____________ PER CURIAM. Robisdel Gonzalez-Abreu, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to identify theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). The district court sentenced * Chief Judge Smith and Judge Colloton file this opinion pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. Gonzalez-Abreu to 30 months’ imprisonment. The court did not impose a term of supervised release. Gonzalez-Abreu appeals his sentence, arguing procedural error and substantive unreasonableness. The case was submitted to our court on February 12, 2018. However, the Bureau of Prisons website shows that Gonzalez-Abreu was released from federal custody on July 12, 2018, while this matter was still under advisement. See Find an Inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. Because GonzalezAbreu has been discharged from prison and is not under supervision, this appeal is moot. See United States v. Hill, 889 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding defendant’s appeal of sentence was rendered moot by his release from federal custody); United States v. Aden, 830 F.3d 812, 816 (8th Cir. 2016) (“[The appellant] was released from custody on April 29, 2016, and this appeal was submitted on May 31, 2016. As such, even if the court abused its discretion, which we would find that it did not, this issue is moot.”); see also Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149 (1996) (per curiam) (when event occurs during pendency of appeal that renders it impossible for court to grant appellant any effectual relief whatsoever, appeal should be dismissed as moot). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. ______________________________ -2-