United States v. Christopher Younger ( 2020 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-1571
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHRISTOPHER YOUNGER,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00248-001)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
on August 13, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 21, 2020)
____________________________________
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Christopher Younger appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to correct
his sentence. For the reasons below, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.
In July 2018, Younger pleaded guilty to assault on a federal employee and theft of
mail. He was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement which specified a sentence of 15
months in prison and three years of supervised release. In April 2019, while Younger was
on supervised release after serving the prison sentence, the Probation Office filed a peti-
tion alleging that Younger had violated his supervised release.
In February 2020, Younger filed a pleading titled “Rule 35 correcting a sentence/3742
review of a sentence” in which he argued that his sentence was illegal due to a mistake in
calculating the application of the sentencing guidelines. The District Court denied the
motion in a text-only order on the docket. Younger filed a timely notice of appeal. In Au-
gust 2020, the District Court held a hearing on the supervised release revocation.
Younger was sentenced to time-served with no additional term of supervision, i.e. his
federal sentence has been served completely.
The Government filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the appeal is moot because
Younger has completed his federal sentence. We agree. In his motion in the District
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
Court, Younger challenged only his sentence and asked for correction of that sentence.
Because the expiration of his sentence makes that relief no longer available, the appeal is
moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If
developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being
able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will grant
the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot. Younger’s motions for the ap-
pointment of counsel are denied.
3