Did the Eleventh Circuit err and create an inter-circuit conflict by dismissing Mr. Alhindi's appeal as moot where, pursuant to United States v. Carrington, 91 F.4th 252 (4th Cir. 2024), only the Eleventh Circuit can rule on the validity of the February 21, 2024 detention order by the district court in the Southern District of Florida under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(A), and a ruling in favor of Mr. Alhindi invalidating the detention order will directly invalidate the civil commitment proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a) in the Eastern District of North Carolina?

“A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party. The case remains live as long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation.” MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S. 288, 295 (2023) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Mr. Haitham Alhindi was charged with a federal offense in the Southern District of Florida. On June 21, 2023, Mr. Alhindi began his detention at FMC Butner, a B.O.P. medical facility, for medical treatment pursuant to an order of detention under 18 U.S.C. 4241(d)(1) in an attempt to restore his competency to stand trial. That provision expressly limits detention to four months. Eight months later on February 21, 2024, the district court ordered Mr. Alhindi’s detention extended pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241(d)(2)(A). Mr. Alhindi appealed that order of detention. On May 10, 2024, the government began civil commitment proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 246(a) in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Although § 4246(a) provides that pending releases are stayed pending resolution of the civil commitment pr9oceedings, no additional order of detention was entered. Subsequently, the district court in the S outhern District of Florida dismissed the indictment against Mr. Alhindi without prejudice. Pursuant to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Carrington , 91 F.4th 252 (4th Cir. 2024), any challenge to the § 4241(d)(2)(A) detention order must b e decided by the court in the criminal case, here by the Eleventh Circuit. Under Carrington , a ruling that the detention order is invalid will have the direct consequence of invalidating the civil commitment proceedings in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Question Presented : Did the Eleventh Circuit err and create an inter -circuit conflict by dismissing Mr. Alhindi’s appeal as moot where, pursuant to United States v. Carrington , 91 F.4th 252 (4th Cir. 2024), only the Eleventh Circuit can rule on the validity of the February 21, 2024 detention order by the district court in the Southern District of Florida under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(A), and a ruling in favor of Mr. Alhindi invalidating the detention order will directly invalidate the civil commitment proceedings under 18 U.S.C . § 4246(a) in the Eastern District of North Carolina? ii INTERESTED PARTIES There are no