
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurilio MORALES-ZARATE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurilio Morales-Zarate, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-50089, 14-50150.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 20, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 26, 2014.
    Michelle Wasserman, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Scott Jones, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Kimberly Sue Trimble, Trial Federal Defenders of San Diego San Diego, CA Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maurilio Morales-Zarate was charged with illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was found incompetent to stand trial and was ordered hospitalized pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). He later moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the time limit in § 4241(d)(1) had expired four months after the district court’s commitment order. The district court denied the motion. Morales-Zarate appealed from that ruling.

After that appeal was filed, the government moved to dismiss the charge against Morales-Zarate. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, but stayed dismissal until Morales-Zarate was returned to the custody of the U.S. Attorney General for a dangerousness evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. Morales-Zarate appealed from that commitment order, as well.

Because the charge against Morales-Za-rate, has been dismissed and he has been released from custody and removed to Mexico, his appeals are moot. Morales-Zarate has already obtained the relief he seeks in his appeal, namely dismissal of the charge against him and release from custody. See Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2003). The alleged violations are not “capable of repetition yet evading review,” because Morales-Zarate is not likely to face the same injury again. See United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (9th Cir.2007). Morales-Za-rate has not challenged an established government policy on behalf of others who might be subject to similar violations. See United States v. Brandau, 578 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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