United States v. Martinez Williams

USCA11 Case: 23-12252 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12252 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARTINEZ WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00147-MLB-AJB-1 ____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12252 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 2 of 3 USCA11 Case: 23-12252 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-12252 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion.

Footnotes

[2] Opinion of the Court 23-12252 Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Martinez Williams appeals the district court’s order sentenc- ing him to 11 months’ imprisonment upon revoking his term of supervised release. Because Williams has now completed his sen- tence, we asked the parties if the appeal is moot. Upon review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional question, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Williams’s appellate brief challenges his now-expired sen- tence. However, any challenge to his sentence has been rendered moot by its completion because he has failed to show that he is subject to collateral consequences stemming from the expired sen- tence. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (holding that, to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy require- ment, a defendant who wishes to continue his appeal after the ex- piration of his sentence must show a “continuing injury” or “col- lateral consequence”); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 3, 14-17 (1998) (holding that a habeas petitioner’s challenge to his parole revoca- tion was moot, where he had already served the underlying sen- tence and failed to show sufficient collateral consequences stem- ming from the revocation); United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557, 1568 (11th Cir. 1991) (dismissing as moot a defendant’s sentencing issue on direct appeal because he had completed his sentence and had not “advanced any argument that ‘there may be benefits . . . in having his sentence reduced after he has already served [it]’”).