
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hovel RIASCOS-CUENU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-20037.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 20, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       This matter is being decided by a quorum. See 28 U.S.C. 46(d).
    
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, Hovel Riascos-Cuenu (“Riascos”). United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100 (5th Cir.2005). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of Lopez v. Gonzales,— U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006). Riascos-Cuenu v. United States, — U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 827, 166 L.Ed.2d 661 (2006).

In the light of Lopez, the district court erred by enhancing Riascos’s sentence based on a Texas conviction for possession of cocaine. Because Ríaseos has completed service of his term of imprisonment and was released by the Bureau of Prisons on January 12, 2007, any argument that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced is moot and the only portion of the sentence remaining for consideration is Ri-ascos’s term of supervised release.

However, as both parties noted in supplemental letter briefs filed with this court, Ríaseos presumably has been deported. In order to resentence him and reduce his term of supervised release, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires the defendant to be present and have the opportunity to allocute. Because Ríaseos has been deported and is legally unable, without permission of the Attorney General, to reenter the United States to be present for a resentencing proceeding, there is no relief we are able to grant Riascos and his appeal is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2007). The appeal is therefore DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     