The following excerpt is from USA. v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2001):
1. Palomba represents a shift in this circuit's law. We had previously held "that a sentence can be challenged, even if it has been completely served, if there might be `collateral consequences for a defendant in any possible future sentencing.' " 182 F.3d at 1123. (citations omitted). In United States v. Schmidt, 99 F.3d 315 (9th Cir. 1996), for example, we concluded that a defendant's appeal of his 90-day sentence for a probation violation was not moot because the sentence, though completed,"could indirectly affect a future sentence." Id. at 317.
1. Palomba represents a shift in this circuit's law. We had previously held "that a sentence can be challenged, even if it has been completely served, if there might be `collateral consequences for a defendant in any possible future sentencing.' " 182 F.3d at 1123. (citations omitted). In United States v. Schmidt, 99 F.3d 315 (9th Cir. 1996), for example, we concluded that a defendant's appeal of his 90-day sentence for a probation violation was not moot because the sentence, though completed,"could indirectly affect a future sentence." Id. at 317.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.