Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04864/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04864-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
James Kelvin Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4864

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES KELVIN WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior 

District Judge. (5:95-cr-00054-BR-1)

Submitted: June 14, 2010 Decided: August 13, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research 

and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-4864 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/13/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James Kelvin Wilson appeals the sentence of eight 

months of imprisonment imposed by the district court upon 

revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, he 

argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the district 

court failed to consider the required factors in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006), and failed to adequately explain its reasons 

for imposing the sentence. The Government responds, asserting 

that the sentence is not plainly unreasonable and should be 

affirmed.

During the pendency of this appeal, Wilson completed 

the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court. The 

court’s sentence did not include any additional term of 

supervised release. In this case, as a result of Wilson’s 

release, “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) (quoting Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 

150 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 09-4864 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/13/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-4864 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/13/2010 Pg: 3 of 3