United States v. Reynolds

24-3105 United States v. Reynolds UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of February, two thousand twenty-six.

Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 24-3105 DAVID REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Appellee: Tiffany H. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, for Michael DiGiacomo, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.

For Defendant-Appellant: Devin McLaughlin, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, VT. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED.

Defendant-Appellant David Reynolds (“Reynolds”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.), convicting him, following his guilty plea, of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Reynolds’s appeal challenges only the length of his prison sentence. However, he completed his prison sentence on January 16, 2026. Thus, as the parties agree, the appeal is now moot. See United States v. Simmons, 150 F.4th 126, 134–35 (2d Cir. 2025).

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal. 1 FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

In addition, we deny Reynolds’s motion to file an out-of-time reply brief as moot.