UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARK ARANJO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:13-cr-00270-MOC-1)

Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Aranjo appeals the district court’s order revoking his 

supervised release and sentencing him to eight months’ 

imprisonment and one year of supervised release. Aranjo’s 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds 

for appeal but questioning whether (a) the district court erred 

in revoking Aranjo’s supervised release, (b) Aranjo’s sentence 

is unreasonable, and (c) Aranjo had ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Aranjo was advised of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm in part 

and dismiss in part.

On July 17, 2014, while this appeal was pending, Aranjo’s 

prison term ended, and he began serving his new term of 

supervised release. We may address sua sponte whether Aranjo’s 

challenge to his imprisonment has become moot, for mootness is a 

jurisdictional question “grounded in the ‘case-or-controversy’ 

requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” United 

States v. Springer, 715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(referencing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1). Because 

Aranjo’s eight-month prison term has expired, and no collateral 

consequences thereof appear on the record, there is no live 

controversy regarding this issue. See United States v. Hardy, 

545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008). Aranjo’s challenge to his 
3

prison sentence is therefore moot, and we dismiss this portion 

of the appeal. 

However, we retain jurisdiction to review his current term 

of supervised release and the district court’s revocation 

decision. Because Aranjo admitted all four of the charged 

supervised release violations, the district court’s revocation 

decision was proper. See United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 

279, 283 (4th Cir. 1999). Turning to the court’s imposition of 

the additional term of supervised release, we conclude that the 

district court’s imposition of the one-year term was not plain 

error. See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 

2013) (stating standard of review); United States v. Crudup, 461 

F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006). Finally, we deem Aranjo’s 

ineffective-assistance claim inappropriate for resolution on 

direct appeal because the record does not conclusively establish 

his counsel’s ineffectiveness. See United States v. Baptiste, 

596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for 

appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot insofar as 

Aranjo challenges his expired term of imprisonment and affirm 

the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This Court 

requires that counsel inform Aranjo, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 
4

review. If Aranjo requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Aranjo.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART