Opinion
22-4288
11-28-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY EARL REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Jonathan Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 22, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:13-cr-00003-NKM-3)
ON BRIEF:
Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Jonathan Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Jeffrey Earl Reynolds appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release and the resulting sentence of four months' imprisonment. He argues that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because his involuntary acts caused by his addiction were the reasons for any breach of trust. Reynolds was released from custody on September 30, 2022, and faces no additional term of supervised release.
We must address sua sponte whether an issue on appeal presents "a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts." Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Reynolds has already served his term of imprisonment and the district court did not impose any additional term of supervised release, there is no longer a live controversy regarding his revocation sentence. His appeal is therefore moot, and we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED