Case Information
*1 Case: 25-30004 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-30004 March 20, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Eduin Ariel Valle-Perla, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:24-CR-272-1 ______________________________ Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges .
Per Curiam: [*]
Eduin Ariel Valle-Perla was charged with illegally reentering the United States after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). A magistrate judge ordered that Valle-Perla be detained pretrial, and the district court denied Valle-Perla’s motion to revoke the magistrate judge’s detention order. Valle-Perla then appealed the district court’s denial.
_____________________ [*] This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
*2 Case: 25-30004 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2025 No. 25-30004 In the meantime, on March 6, 2025, Valle-Perla pleaded guilty to the charge. As Valle-Perla concedes, his guilty plea moots his appeal for pretrial release. See United States v. O’Shaughnessy , 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Ruiz-Garcia , 832 F. App’x 313, 314 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (dismissing as moot pretrial detention due to a guilty plea). [1]
Accordingly, Valle-Perla’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot. _____________________ [1] In a 28(j) letter conceding that his appeal his moot, Valle-Perla nevertheless asks
us to find “an exception to mootness” because the “challenged practices are likely to recur.” Valle-Perla invokes the voluntary-cessation exception, but that doctrine only applies when the mootness arises from the defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice. See Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Abbott , 58 F.4th 824, 833 (5th Cir. 2023). The government here did not voluntarily cease holding Valle-Perla in pretrial detention. Rather, his pretrial detention was overtaken by his subsequent guilty plea, which deprives him of any “legally cognizable interest” in this appeal. O’Shaughnessy , 772 F.2d at 113. Moreover, we are unaware of any precedent—and Valle-Perla does not cite any—applying the voluntary-cessation exception in the criminal context.
2