Court Opinion

ID: 9699958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:00:54.960985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:03.830936
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4326      Doc: 25         Filed: 08/24/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4326

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DARRYL ROBERT KINLOCH,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (9:10-cr-01102-MBS-1)

        Submitted: April 11, 2023                                         Decided: August 24, 2023

        Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charles W. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christopher
        Scott Lietzow, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4326         Doc: 25      Filed: 08/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Darryl Robert Kinloch appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to five months’ imprisonment. During the pendency of this

        appeal, Kinloch was released from incarceration.

               “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). “A case

        becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article

        III—when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable

        interest in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Kinloch has

        already served his term of imprisonment and the district court did not impose any additional

        term of supervised release, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the revocation

        of his supervised release. Thus, Kinloch’s challenges to the revocation of his supervised

        release and the reasonableness of the revocation sentence are moot. See id.; see also United

        States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).

               We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot and deny the Government’s motion to

        remand 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

                                                     2