United States v. Casey Mayer ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-35877
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 6:16-cv-01726-AA
6:05-cr-60072-AA-1
v.
CASEY DALE MAYER, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Casey Dale Mayer appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014),
we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mayer’s section 2255 motion challenged the sentence imposed upon
resentencing for his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because Mayer
has fully served his custodial sentence and is no longer subject to a term of
supervised release, the district court properly concluded that his section 2255
motion is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998); United States v.
Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). Contrary to his contention, Mayer
has not shown that any exception to the mootness doctrine applies. See Spencer,
523 U.S. at 8; United States v. King, 891 F.3d 868, 870 (9th Cir. 2018) (where
collateral consequences not presumed, petitioner has burden to show he faces
them).
We treat Mayer’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood,
195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach the government’s additional
arguments.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-35877