Case Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon Christopher McLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-18
Citations: 639 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 15-4362
Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon Christopher McLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon Christopher McLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4362.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 22, 2015.
Decided: May 18, 2016.
Amy K. Raffaldt, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Ro-well, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Christopher McLaughlin appeals the 14-month sentence the district court imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised release. McLaughlin claims that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying his request for a sentence below the applicable Sen- terming Guidelines policy statement range. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
During the pendency of this appeal, McLaughlin was released from incarceration. We may 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." Friedman's, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because McLaughlin already has served his term of imprisonment, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the length of his confinement. Therefore, McLaughlin's challenge to the district court's imposition of the 14-month prison term is moot. United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir.2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.