Whether the Second Circuit wrongly dismissed petitioner's appeal prematurely as moot before allowing him the opportunity to show that his appeal meets the case or controversy requirement under Article III of the United States Constitution

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4. WHETHER THE SECOND CrecusT WroMeLy DESMZSSED PETITIONER'S APPEAL PREMATURELY AS MOoT BEFORE ALLOWING HII THE OfPoRTUNETY TO SHOW THAT /ZS APPEAL MEETS THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTLCLE JIE oF THE UsETED StAIES Cous7zTUTION @. PED THE SECOND CIRCUIT WRONGLY DETERMINE PETETLONERS REVOCATION OF | SUPERMISEO RELEASE SENTENCE LXPLRED By breontly RELYZNG OW UNITED STATES V, AéogBEC, 170 F.3d 34S (ad Cie. 1999) WHEN PETITIONER XS SERVING AN ASCRECATED 30-YEAR CONCUIRRENTL Y IMPOSED SENTENCE FoR Bod HIS MULIZPLE DRUG ConsAtreAcy CASE AMD SINGLE REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE CASE. CONVICTLONS 2 3, TS PETCILONER'S APPEAL MooT WHEN HE HAS OPEW VIDLATIONS OF SuPERESED RELEASE ANO A STANDING ARREST WARRANT Zw WHE MASSACHUSETTS DZSTRICT COURT THROGH “LTS FLAWED AND PRETUDLCIAL TRANSFER OF JURESOICKION OF PETEHoNER's SuPEeutsED zeLEAse To THE VERMONT COURT UNDER 18.0.5.C. § 36052 4, 2S PeTsTIONER's APPEAL MooT WHEN ME Disrercr CourT Fatugo To AppataT PETLTIONER CTA COUNSEL FoR H&S REVOCATION Of SUPERULSEP RELEASE PROGZEDING UNDER THE ELFTH AMENDMENT AND PROCEEDED 72 CoNyEC PETETIONE OF RENOCATION Of SUPERYZSED RELEASE BASED ON A SiL~ SEALED oN THE VEQMONT DESTRECT Cou@T'sS DOUCET WARRANT PEKIZION THAT” WE WAS NEVER, PRINCOED OR WAS AWARE EXESTEO AND THEN SENTENCE PEITELONER OVER THE AUTHoREZED STATUTORY MAKI WLM WiETHOUT CONETDERING A SENGLE IBU.SC. $ 35S3 FACIOR AS REOUZRED BY CONGRESS UNDER 18 U.S.C. $ 3583)? . 1