US v. James Wilson, No. 09-4864 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4864 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES KELVIN WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00054-BR-1) Submitted: June 14, 2010 Decided: August 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James months of Kelvin Wilson imprisonment appeals imposed by the the sentence district revocation of his term of supervised release. of eight court upon On appeal, he argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the required factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing the sentence. that the sentence is not The Government responds, asserting plainly unreasonable and should be affirmed. During the pendency of this appeal, Wilson completed the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court. court s sentence supervised did release. not In include this any case, as additional a result The term of of Wilson s release, there is no wrong to remedy and an appeal should . . . be dismissed . . . when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant. United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, dispense with oral we dismiss argument the because 2 appeal the as facts moot. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.