United States v. Bennett, 870 F.3d 34

George H. Bennett filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition challenging a sentence enhancement; the district court granted relief.
On July 5, 2017, this Court issued an opinion affirming the district court's grant of § 2255 relief.
The Government filed a "Notice of Death" on July 11, 2017, stating Bennett had died on June 30, 2017 — before the July 5 opinion issued but after the panel rendered its decision (the court assumed, without deciding, it had jurisdiction when the opinion issued).
The Government moved to withdraw the July 5 opinion and vacate the judgment as moot; Bennett's counsel opposed the motion and did not identify any continuing collateral consequences of the challenged enhancement.
The court exercised its discretion to withdraw the July 5 opinion, vacate the judgment as moot, and remanded with instructions to the district court to dismiss the habeas petition as moot.
The court noted another First Circuit panel had later adopted the reasoning of the withdrawn opinion in United States v. Windley; the withdrawn opinion, though vacated, remains accessible for that reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the panel must retain its July 5, 2017 opinion after Bennett's death	Bennett: relief remains meaningful; court previously issued opinion affirming relief	Gov: Bennett's death moots the case; judgment should be withdrawn and vacated	Court granted the Government's motion, withdrew the opinion, vacated judgment, and remanded to dismiss as moot
Whether collateral consequences survive petitioner’s death to avoid mootness	Bennett: collateral consequences from sentence enhancement may continue and preserve a live controversy	Gov: counsel failed to identify any continuing collateral consequences	Court found no identified collateral consequences and treated the case as moot
Whether the court had to vacate sua sponte because death occurred before opinion issued	Bennett: impliedly contends judgment should stand	Gov: argued for withdrawal given mootness; court noted circuit split and discretion	Court assumed, without deciding, it had jurisdiction at issuance but exercised discretion to withdraw opinion on mootness grounds
Whether withdrawn opinion's reasoning may be relied upon by other panels	Bennett: N/A	Gov: N/A; noted that other panels might still rely on reasoning	Court acknowledged another panel had adopted the reasoning (Windley); withdrawn opinion remains accessible for its reasoning

Robinson v. California, 371 U.S. 905 (1962) (Supreme Court denied motion to abate judgment after appellant's death when Court issued decision unaware of death)
United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011) (per curiam) (vacated court of appeals judgment where appeal was moot due to events occurring before decision)
Independent Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognized discretion to dismiss appeals as moot even after issuing decision)
In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (held court lacked jurisdiction and vacated disposition when mooting event was known before mandate)
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, 701 F.2d 653 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting mootness is jurisdictional and must be considered)
Medina v. Chappell, 782 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal of habeas petition as moot following death)
Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (habeas dismissal as moot post-death precedent)
Gornto v. MacDougall, 482 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1973) (dismissing habeas as moot following death)
United States v. Windley, 864 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2017) (another panel endorsed the reasoning of the withdrawn Bennett opinion)