United States v. Mejia-Amador

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 25, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-1063 (D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00144-CMA-10) ANTONIA MEJIA-AMADOR, a/k/a Tona, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, KELLY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Antonia Mejia-Amador pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. The district court sentenced her to the time she had already served in presentence confinement. Over her objection, it then remanded her to the custody of the United States Marshal to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She appealed, challenging solely that portion of the district court’s judgment that ordered her placed in the Marshal’s custody to be turned over to ICE. See R., Vol. 1 at 17 (notice of appeal). * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. The United States filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in her plea agreement under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Ms. Mejia-Amador argued in response that her appeal did not fall within the scope of her waiver of appellate rights. See id. at 1325 (appeal must fall within scope of appeal waiver). She argued she was not appealing from either her conviction or sentence, but from the order that placed her in ICE custody. The United States then filed a second motion to dismiss the appeal, this time on mootness grounds. The government asserted, and Ms. Mejia-Amador concedes, that she has been removed from the United States. See Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 1 (stating Ms. Mejia-Amador “has been lawfully deported to Honduras”). The government contends this mooted her appeal, because this court can no longer remedy her alleged injury: being turned over to ICE. Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ and an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation. In considering mootness, we ask whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world. If an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, we must dismiss the case, rather than issue an advisory opinion. Kansas ex rel. Kan. Dep’t for Children & Families v. SourceAmerica, 874 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 2017) (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Ms. Mejia-Amador responds her appeal is not moot because her injury is capable of repetition, yet evading review. “Under this ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals