Court Opinion

ID: 9401055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:36.432526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.536907
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4408      Doc: 25         Filed: 06/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4408

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        WINZEL DALLAS JACOBS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00114-WO-2)

        Submitted: May 22, 2023                                              Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James E. Quander, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-
        Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4408      Doc: 25          Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Winzel Dallas Jacobs appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant

        to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds for review

        but questioning whether the district court properly revoked Jacobs’ supervised release and

        whether the revocation sentence was reasonable. * During the pendency of this appeal,

        Jacobs was released from incarceration.

               Before addressing the merits of an appeal, we must first consider whether the appeal

        presents “a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III

        jurisdiction of the courts.” Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “If an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal

        that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing

        party, the appeal must be dismissed.” Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir.

        2007) (cleaned up). That is because “federal courts have no authority to give opinions

        upon moot questions . . . or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the

        matter in issue in the case before it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Because Jacobs 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

               *
                 The Government declined to file a brief. Jacobs was informed of his right to file
        a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4408         Doc: 25       Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        controversy regarding the revocation of his supervised release. Thus, Jacobs’ appeal is

        moot.

                In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no grounds upon which we have jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal as

        moot. This court requires that counsel inform Jacobs, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jacobs 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 Jacobs.

                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

                                                      3