United States of America v. Holli Telford Lundahl

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HOLLI TELFORD LUNDAHL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-8045
(D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00048-NDF-1)
(D. Wyo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Holli Lundahl was indicted on three counts of health care fraud and aiding and
abetting health care fraud, and two counts of aggravated identify theft. A jury found
Ms. Lundahl guilty on all counts on May 3, 2021. After the jury rendered its verdict,
the district court ordered Ms. Lundahl to be detained pending sentencing, holding
that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that no condition
or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of any
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 10, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-8045 Document: 010110574319 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Ms. Lundahl has
appealed that determination.
On August 25, 2021, however, the district court sentenced Ms. Lundahl to 36
months in prison and committed her to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
Ms. Lundahl’s appeal of her pre-sentencing detention is therefore moot, and it is
hereby dismissed. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 891 (10th Cir. 1997)
(explaining that the “inability to grant effective relief renders [an] issue moot”); see
also Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam) (holding appeal
concerning defendant’s right to pretrial bail was mooted by defendant’s conviction);
United States v. O’Shaughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)
(holding appeal concerning defendant’s right to pretrial bail was mooted by
defendant’s conviction and sentence). We deny all other pending motions.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-8045 Document: 010110574319 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --