1780, and his claim of actual innocence is not cognizable in habeas proceedings not filed under the Act. Gardner, 2014 Ark. 346, at 4, 439 S.W.3d at 666. Pennington’s chai- lenge to the validity of his guilty plea is likewise not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Parker v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 309, at 3 (per curiam). Pennington’s allegations with respect to his original sentencing order, including the claim based on Miller, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, are moot. As stated above, Pennington’s original judgment and sentence were declared illegal and set aside by this court. Pennington, 2014 Ark. 441, at 2, 497 S.W.3d at 187. A habeas proceeding cannot'be'-maintained with respect to a sentence that is no longer in effect, Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494, at 5, 2011 WL 5588934 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). With respect to Pennington’s allegations
holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that appellant cannot revive claim he abandoned before the district court holding that the appellant cannot demonstrate that he is being illegally detained when the sentences have expired holding that because the individual was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage that  consent was tainted by the illegality