United States of America v. Josue Villalta, a/k/a Walter Alberto Sanchez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4817
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSUE VILLALTA, a/k/a Walter Alberto Sanchez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cr-00195-DKC-1)
Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: September 8, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Appellate
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Sujit
Raman, Chief of Appeals, Greenbelt, Maryland; Leslie Caldwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, James I. Pearce, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Josue Villalta pled guilty to illegal reentry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012), and was
sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised
release. The only issue Villalta raises on appeal is a
challenge to the district court’s finding that he had previously
been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” triggering an eight-
level enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2013), and resulting in a Sentencing
Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months. We dismiss the appeal as
moot.
During the pendency of this appeal, Villalta was released
from imprisonment. Accordingly, his arguments challenging the
district court’s imposition of the 13-month prison term are
moot. Cf. United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 284-85 (4th
Cir. 2008) (noting that appellant’s release from prison during
pendency of appeal mooted challenge to revocation of supervised
release and imposition of prison sentence); see Friedman’s, Inc.
v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hether we are
presented with a live case or controversy is a question we may
raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article
III jurisdiction of the courts.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Villalta does not challenge either his conviction or
the district court’s imposition of supervised release.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --