
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Joel HERNANDEZ-BANEGA, a/k/a Jimmy Cruz, a/k/a Jimmy Diaz, a/k/a Jimmy Diaz-Cruz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-1061
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed March 28, 2017
    Michael Conrad Johnson, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jimmy Joel Hernandez-Banega, Pro Se
    Brian R. Leedy, Jacob R. Rasch-Chabot, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before HOLMES, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Jimmy Joel Hernandez-Banega challenges his twenty-month term of imprisonment and three-year period of supervised release. He argues that the district court improperly applied a twelve-level sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(l)(B). '

On March 15, 2017, however, the government filed a notice advising our court that Mr. Hernandez-Banega was deported to Honduras following completion of the custodial portion of his sentence. Although Mr. Hernandez-Banega remains legally subject to a term of supervised release, his deportation means that he “has no obligation to report to a probation officer and is not under the supervision or control of the United States Probation Office.” United States v. Vera-Flores, 496 F.3d 1177, 1181 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Hernandez-Banega’s removal has therefore “eliminated all practical consequences associated with serving a term of supervised release,” id. at 1181, and he has no “actual injury which this court can remedy,” id. at 1182. Similarly, Mr. Hernandez-Banega “has failed to demonstrate the presence of collateral consequences arising from any alleged errors the ... district court made during [his] sentencing proceeding.” Id. And the mere possibility of his reentry (along with the attendant revival of his obligation to comply with his supervised-release conditions) is too speculative to avoid dismissal for mootness. See id. at 1181-82.

Accordingly, Mr. Hernandez-Banega’s removal has rendered this appeal moot. See id. at 1182 (dismissing an appeal on mootness grounds following deportation); see also United States v. Pena-Flores, 240 Fed.Appx. 281, 283 (10th Cir. 2007) (same), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1281, 128 S.Ct. 1702, 170 L.Ed.2d 515 (2008). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.  