Filed: Oct. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20909 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LARRY MASTERS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-89-CR-322-2 - October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Larry Masters appeals the district court’s order extending his supervised release through August 30, 1999. He contends that the dist
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20909 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LARRY MASTERS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-89-CR-322-2 - October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* Larry Masters appeals the district court’s order extending his supervised release through August 30, 1999. He contends that the distr..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20909
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LARRY MASTERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-89-CR-322-2
--------------------
October 19, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Masters appeals the district court’s order extending
his supervised release through August 30, 1999. He contends that
the district court’s basis for the extension was unlawful and
asks this court to vacate the district court’s order and remand
for termination of the term of supervised release.
This extended term of supervised release, however, ended
August 30, 1999. Accordingly, this appeal is moot, as this court
can no longer grant Masters the relief he seeks. See Bailey v.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-20909
-2-
Southerland,
821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). Because this
appeal is moot, it is
DISMISSED.