Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Feb. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Page 353.
Brian D. Hershman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Sies, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Randy Bernard Thomas appeals his nine-month sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We lack jurisdiction, and we dismiss.
Thomas contends that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history. We do not reach the merits of his contention because his appeal is moot. Thomas has been released from custody, is not subject to supervised release, and has not demonstrated collateral consequences. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14-18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (refusing to presume collateral consequences adequate to meet Article III's injury-in-fact requirement where appellant challenged his parole revocation); see also United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that an appellant who has completed his sentence lacks standing to challenge his criminal history calculation).
DISMISSED.