UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 94-11046
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
SOLAH KASSEM ABOU-KASSEM,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:87 CR 14 E)
______________________________________________________
August 4, 1995
Before DAVIS, JONES, Circuit Judges, and HINOJOSA1, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:2
Abou-Kassem appeals the dismissal of his § 2255 petition. We
dismiss the appeal as moot.
In November 1987, a jury convicted Abou-Kassem of two counts
of hostage taking, two counts of attempted air piracy, one count of
unlawful possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, and four
counts of using a firearm in a crime of violence. Before trial,
the district court granted Abou-Kassem's request for a competency
1
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting
by designation.
2
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
hearing and, following the hearing, declared him mentally competent
to stand trial.
Before sentencing, Abou-Kassem requested another hearing to
assess his mental condition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244 and 4257.
The district court granted his request and determined that Abou-
Kassem suffered from a mental condition requiring treatment.
Pursuant to § 4244, the district court committed him to a federal
mental facility under a provisional sentence of life plus forty
years. Abou-Kassem then filed a § 2255 petition challenging his
provisional sentence. He filed the instant appeal when the
district court denied his petition. After Abou-Kassem filed his
notice of appeal, however, the district court determined that he
was competent to be sentenced and imposed a final sentence. Abou-
Kassem subsequently filed a direct appeal from his final sentence.
Abou-Kassem's provisional sentence was terminated when the
district court issued its final sentence. Because of the
termination of his provisional sentence, we can no longer grant him
the relief he seeks in his § 2255 petition. His appeal of the
district court's denial of his § 2255 petition is therefore moot.
See In re Sullivan Cent. Plaza, I, Ltd., 914 F.2d 731, 733-34 (5th
Cir. 1990)("The mootness doctrine is grounded primarily and
originally in the appellate court's inability to fashion relief.").
Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2