FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAY 05 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS




                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



TOMMASO GUERRINI,                                 No. 06-55703

              Petitioner - Appellant,             D.C. No. CV-05-06827-FMC

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the
United States,

              Respondent - Appellee.



                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                  Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding

                                Submitted May 3, 2011 **
                                  Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

       Tommaso Guerrini, a native and citizen of Italy, appeals the district court’s

order denying and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Because the

petition is moot, we dismiss.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
       Guerrini was released from detention on January 5, 2007. “For a habeas

petition to continue to present a live controversy after the petitioner’s release . . .

there must be some remaining collateral consequence that may be redressed by

success on the petition.” Abdala v. INS, 

, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

       Guerrini has not shown he suffered any legally cognizable collateral

consequences from his detention. See 

Spencer v. Kemna, 

,

7 (1998). Moreover, we recently clarified in Singh v. Holder, No. 10-15715, 

, at *9 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2011), that post-hoc memorandum

dispositions are inadequate and that audio recordings would satisfy due process.

Thus, Guerrini cannot show that he has a reasonable expectation that he would be

denied a recorded bond hearing in the future. See also Weinstein v. Bradford, 

, 149 (1975). Finally, Guerrini never represented, and does not currently

represent, a certified class of similarly-situated aliens. See Franks v. Bowman

Transp. Co., 

, 753-55 (1976).

       Guerrini’s current detention is the result of his intervening unlawful reentry

attempt in 2009 and his current status as an “arriving alien” ineligible for bond

under 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(ii). Thus, his current detention has no bearing on his

habeas petition.


                                            2
DISMISSED.




             3