Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04474/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04474-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Lee Horne
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN LEE HORNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00029-FL-1)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Jude Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4474 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lee Horne appeals the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised 

release and impose a 15-month sentence. Horne argues that the district court lacked 

sufficient evidence to conclude that he had committed felony larceny, a Grade B violation 

of his supervised release terms. While this appeal was pending, Horne was released from 

custody.

“When a case or controversy ceases to exist—either due to a change in the facts or 

the law—the litigation is moot, and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist 

also.” Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither 

party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). Horne has 

already served his sentence and faces no further term of supervised release; thus, there is 

no longer a live controversy. Horne’s challenge to the revocation of his supervised release 

is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4474 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 2