PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-2442 _____________ MARIO ABREU, Appellant v. SUPERINTENDENT SMITHFIELD SCI; PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 1:15-cv-01465) District Judge: Sylvia H. Rambo ______________ Argued: February 5, 2020 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: August 19, 2020) Diana Stavroulakis [ARGUED] 262 Elm Court Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Counsel for Appellant Hugh J. Burns, Jr. [ARGUED] Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania 1600 Arch Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philip M. McCarthy Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania Appeals & Legal Services Strawberry Square 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Appellees ____________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. Mario Abreu appeals from the District Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Commonwealth”) argues on appeal that Abreu’s habeas petition is moot because after the notice of appeal was filed in 2 this Court, federal authorities removed Abreu to the Dominican Republic, and a federal conviction not at issue here permanently bars Abreu’s reentry to the United States. For the following reasons, we will vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. I. In April of 2004, Abreu was charged by the Commonwealth with twenty-two drug-related counts, which alleged that he sold cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy in Northumberland, Snyder, and surrounding counties. After a five-day trial, a jury found Abreu guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-seven to fifty- four years of imprisonment. The court ordered that sentence to run consecutively to a federal sentence Abreu was currently serving after a 2003 arrest. Abreu appealed, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. Abreu did not appeal that ruling. Abreu later sought relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), also to no avail. Then, on July 29, 2015, Abreu filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court. Abreu alleged that his PCRA counsel’s assistance was ineffective in failing to assert that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court deny Abreu’s habeas petition because his claims were “barred by the doctrine of procedural default,” and he “has not established cause and prejudice sufficient to overcome this default” because his claims “are without merit.” Appendix (“App.”) 35–36. The District Court adopted this recommendation in its entirety. 3 Abreu timely appealed, and we granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) “as to [Abreu’s] claim that trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to challenge the admission of . . . grand jury testimony.” App. 2. We later expanded the COA to include Abreu’s claim that “trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to seek to strike testimony from [a police officer] recounting statements made by [other individuals].” App. 4. While Abreu’s appeal was pending in this Court, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals