United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED April 13, 2022 No. 20-10841 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Lonnie L. Foster,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

NFN Warden, Federal Detention Center, Seagoville; United States Parole Commission; Mansfield Law Enforcement Center,

Respondents—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:20-CV-389

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge: This appeal presents a question of mootness. A former military prisoner, while serving a term of supervised release, violated a condition of his supervision. After being arrested and while being detained, he brought the current lawsuit and claimed that the condition was unconstitutional. He has been released, and his term of supervision has ended. He continues this suit in part because he has been denied all veterans’ benefits due to the violation of a condition of supervision. Our issue is whether the denial of the Case: 20-10841 Document: 00516279040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2022

No. 20-10841

benefits is a collateral consequence sufficient to avoid finding his claim to be moot now that he has completed his term of supervision. We conclude that it may be, but there was no development of that issue in district court. We therefore VACATE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2006, Lonnie Foster was a staff sergeant in the United States Army stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. He was convicted that year by a general court-martial of sex crimes and sentenced to 15 years in a military prison. After serving nine years in the prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, he was released and made subject to a six-year period of parole. A requirement of his parole seems to have been participation in sex-offender group treatment. Foster has claimed that this condition was unconstitutionally imposed upon his release by a civilian parole commission and not by the court-martial that sentenced him. He has also claimed that the condition violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The record does not contain any evidence of the Army’s consideration of granting parole or supervised release to Foster. His supervision has been by a civilian probation office. Foster apparently was not a compliant participant in some of his group treatment, and his probation officer recommended that a warrant issue for his arrest. Foster was arrested and jailed for parole violations. While detained, Foster filed a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. He challenged the imposition of the group treatment condition, his confinement, and the deprivation of his due process rights.1 He sought the appointment of counsel

1 A Section 2241 application is the proper pleading for challenging the manner in which a sentence is being executed. See United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992). Typically, filing a Section 2255 motion in the court of conviction is the means f