United States v. Wilfredo Moreno Ferrer

USCA11 Case: 25-10909 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10909 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WILFREDO MORENO FERRER, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00406-TPB-TGW-4 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Wilfredo Moreno Ferrer appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a sentence reduction pursu- USCA11 Case: 25-10909 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10909 ant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 821 to the Sen- tencing Guidelines. On appeal, Moreno Ferrer argues that the dis- trict court procedurally erred in using a form order to summarily deny his § 3582(c)(2) motion because it fails to adequately explain the court’s reasoning to allow for meaningful appellate review. In response, the government argues that this appeal is now moot con- sidering Moreno Ferrer’s completion of his term of imprisonment on August 29, 2025. After careful review, we agree with the gov- ernment and find that Moreno Ferrer’s appeal is moot.

We review jurisdictional issues de novo and must raise juris- dictional issues sua sponte. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009). We retain jurisdiction to hear only live “Cases and Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. A case is moot if, at any stage of litigation, a party no longer suffers from or is threatened by an actual injury that could be remedied by a favora- ble judicial decision. United States v. Juv. Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011). In criminal cases, to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, a defendant who wishes to continue his appeal after the expiration of his sentence must show a “continuing injury” or “collateral consequence.” Id. We addressed mootness in an appeal from the denial of a sentence reduction under the First Step Act when the defendant’s term of imprisonment had expired before he moved for a sentence reduction and he was serving the supervised-release portion of his sentence. United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 25-10909 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-10909 Opinion of the Court 3 2021). We concluded that “a challenge to an imposed term of im- prisonment is moot once that term has expired, . . . but where a defendant is still . . . serving a term of supervised release, any ap- peal related to that aspect of his sentence is not moot.” Id. at 1310 n.1. Because Moreno Ferrer has now completed his term of im- prisonment, his appeal from the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.1 APPEAL DISMISSED.

1 Moreno Ferrer’s original motion did not ask for a reduction of his supervised release nor would he be eligible when he filed his motion. See 18 U.S.C § 3583(e)(1) (explaining that after one year of supervised release, the defendant may move to modify his term of supervised release).