
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John J. ROMERO, a.k.a. John Romero, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50196.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 17, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Wesley Liu Hsu, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John J. Romero, Loma Linda, CA, pro se.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John J. Romero appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a determination that 29 U.S.C. § 504(a) is inapplicable to him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Romero contends that he is not subject to section 504(a)’s 13-year restriction on serving as a officer for a labor organization because the statute is penal, rather than remedial. Romero does not explain why this distinction is important, and, in any event, he is incorrect. See De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 159-60, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1960).

Romero also asserts numerous challenges to the sentence imposed for his underlying conviction for making false statements to the United States Department of Labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). These arguments are not properly raised in this appeal, and are moot in view of Romero’s completion of his sentence and supervised release term. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     