Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06877/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06877-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamie Earl Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6877

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMIE EARL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00211-D-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Clayton Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Leslie Katherine 

Cooley, Assistant United States Attorney, Dena Janae King, 

Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6877 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Earl Smith appeals the district court’s order denying 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence 

reduction. While Smith’s appeal was pending, he completed his 

term of imprisonment and was released from prison. “Given 

[appellant’s] release from prison, there is no wrong to remedy 

and an appeal should be dismissed when, by virtue of an 

intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual 

relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” United States v. 

Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 2008) (alteration and 

internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Booker, 645 

F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (explaining that “[a]ny 

termination of supervised release must be sought by a motion 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)”). Accordingly, we dismiss this 

appeal as moot. 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

Appeal: 16-6877 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2