Court Opinion

ID: 9951382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 21:00:40.180051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:54.316687
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4523      Doc: 27         Filed: 03/14/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4523

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        PATRICK O’NEAL HARRIS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00190-CCE-1)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 14, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Tracy Maria Williams-Durham, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4523         Doc: 27        Filed: 03/14/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Patrick O’Neal Harris appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

        release and imposing a six-month sentence. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

        v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds for appeal but

        questioning whether the district court properly revoked Harris’ supervised release and

        whether the revocation sentence is reasonable. Harris has filed pro se supplemental briefs

        raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his constitutional rights.

        While this appeal was pending, Harris was released from custody.

               “A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties

        lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Star v. TI Oldfield Dev., LLC, 962 F.3d

        117, 130 (4th Cir. 2020) (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). “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).

               Harris has already served his sentence, and he faced no additional term of supervised

        release. Thus, there is no longer a live controversy. Harris’ 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).

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

        found no grounds upon which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4523      Doc: 27         Filed: 03/14/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

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

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