Case: 09-60389 Document: 00511071051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 6, 2010
No. 09-60389
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DONALD CLARK, also known as “Little Don”,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:04-CR-120-1
Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Clark, federal prisoner # 12044-042, appeals the district court’s
judgment denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) based on the amendment to the crack cocaine guideline.
Clark pleaded guilty on November 9, 2004. He was sentenced to sixty
months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release on February 10,
2005. Judgment was entered February 16, 2005. Clark served his sentence and
was released from incarceration on May 29, 2009.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-60389 Document: 00511071051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010
No. 09-60389
While neither party raises jurisdiction, we are obligated to sua sponte
determine whether this case is moot. See Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918
(5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Because Clark has completed the confinement
portion of his sentence, his argument that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for reduction of sentence is moot. See id. At most, we
could determine whether Clark is entitled to a reduction in the term of
supervised release, which he is currently serving. See id. However, the
amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines nowhere provide for the
reduction of a term of supervised release for already-completed sentences, nor
does Clark argue that he is entitled to a reduction in his term of supervised
release. See U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2007); id. Supp. to
App’x C, Amend. 706.
Accordingly, Clark’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
2