ROLANDO SANCHEZ V. G. LEWIS, No. 14-55862 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 31 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ROLANDO ESTEBAN SANCHEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 14-55862 D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02018-DOC v. MEMORANDUM* G. D. LEWIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Rolando Esteban Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sanchez raises several challenges to his convictions and sentence for murder and related offenses. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) only as to Sanchez’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle. While this appeal was pending, the state court dismissed that count.1 Because Sanchez is no longer in custody for the concealed weapon offense, this court “cannot grant any effectual relief” in Sanchez’s favor and the certified claim is moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (internal quotations omitted). We treat Sanchez’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the COA and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). DISMISSED. 1 We grant appellee’s request for judicial notice of the transcript from Sanchez’s June 30, 2014, resentencing hearing in state court. 2 14-55862

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.