USA v. Octavio Sanchez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10279
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00231-JDW-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OCTAVIO SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 4, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Octavio Sanchez appeals the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction,
under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The government has moved to dismiss Sanchez’s appeal
Case: 16-10279 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
as moot because he has served his term of imprisonment and has been removed
from the United States. We carried the government’s motion with the case and
ordered the parties to address the issue of mootness in their remaining briefs.
We must examine our own jurisdiction sua sponte, and review jurisdictional
issues de novo. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009).
A case becomes moot on appeal when “it no longer presents a live
controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” United
States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Najjar v.
Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)). Thus, the key question in
determining mootness is whether events have occurred that deprive a court of the
ability to grant meaningful relief. Id. Where a convict’s sentence has expired,
there must be some “collateral consequence” of the conviction, other than his
incarceration itself, to maintain his suit. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
However, a convict’s injury may not be contingent upon his later breaking the law
and being caught and convicted. Id. at 15 (rejecting the argument that parole
revocation was a collateral consequence of his conviction because it could be used
to enhance a future sentence). When the defendant challenges the underlying
conviction, a collateral consequence is presumed. United States v. Juvenile Male,
564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011). However, where a defendant challenges only an expired
sentence, no such presumption applies, and “the defendant must bear the burden of
Case: 16-10279 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
identifying some ongoing ‘collateral consequenc[e]’ that is ‘traceable’ to the
challenged portion of the sentence and ‘likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Id. (quotation omitted) (alteration in original).
In an appeal of a sentence by the government, we have determined that the
defendant’s deportation did not moot the government’s appeal of the defendant’s
sentence of probation. United States v. Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir.
2004). We noted that the possibility of the defendant reentering the United States
was speculative but nevertheless sufficed to maintain a live case. Id.
Sanchez has not met his burden of showing an ongoing collateral
consequence of the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction that likely
would be redressed by a favorable judicial ruling since he has served his
imprisonment sentence and been deported. See Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. at 936.
Sanchez did not respond to the government’s motion to dismiss and did not file a
reply addressing mootness. Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.
Case: 16-10279 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --