US v. Eric Wolfe, No. 10-5256 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ERIC W. WOLFE, a/k/a Fritz, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00222-42) Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tim C. Carrico, CARRICO LAW OFFICES, LC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Blaire L. Malkin, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric possession violation W. a of of Wolfe firearm 18 U.S.C. was convicted by an after unlawful §§ 922(g)(3), a jury user of 924(a)(2) trial of drugs, in (2006). The district court sentenced Wolfe to time served and five months home confinement. On appeal, Wolfe challenges the district court s denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress a Rock Island Arsenal .45 caliber pistol ( the Rock Island firearm ) that was seized from a pawn shop following the execution of a search warrant and a pawnshop ticket associated with the firearm. Before entertaining the merits of Wolfe s challenge, however, we See Friedman's, consider our jurisdiction to decide the issue. Inc. v. question Dunlap, of 290 whether F.3d we 191, are 197 (4th presented Cir. with 2002) a live controversy is a question we may raise sua sponte. ). ( [T]he case or For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Article III gives federal over Cases or Controversies. courts jurisdiction only U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. This requirement permits federal courts to exercise jurisdiction only where conflicting contentions of the parties present a real, substantial legal interests, controversy a between dispute hypothetical or abstract. parties definite and having adverse concrete, not Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (internal quotation marks and 2 ellipsis omitted). A case is moot, and thus no longer justiciable, when resolution of the issues presented no longer implicates a legally cognizable interest. 577 F.3d 543, 546 (4th Cir. 2009). Townes v. Jarvis, Mootness has been described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) (mootness). must Arizonans continue for throughout Official its existence v. Arizona, English 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, for a controversy to be moot, it must lack at least one of the three required elements for Article III standing: injury in fact, (2) causation, or (3) redressability. (1) Townes, 577 F.3d at 546-47. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it is unlawful for any person who is an unlawful user of . . . any controlled substance . . . to . . . possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm. To convict Wolfe, then, the Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, among other elements, that he possessed § 922(g)(3). a firearm that affected commerce. 18 U.S.C. At trial, Wolfe and the Government stipulated that Wolfe had possessed the Rock Island firearm and that it had moved in and affected interstate commerce. The stipulations were signed by Wolfe and his attorney and admitted into evidence at trial. Wolfe does not contend that the stipulations are 3 invalid. Cf. United (9th Cir. 2002) States v. (concluding Larson, that, 302 if F.3d 1016, defendant s 1020 trial stipulation to elements establishing conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon was found valid, court would lack jurisdiction to consider denial of defendant s earlier motion to suppress). firearm Even if we were to determine that the Rock Island and pawn ticket should have been suppressed, Wolfe admitted by his stipulations that he possessed the firearm and that it affected commerce. Wolfe does not contend that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, nor does he raise any other challenge to his conviction, sentence, or any other ruling issued by the district court. Thus, the relief Wolfe seeks reversal of the district court s ruling refusing to suppress affect the the Rock Island soundness of firearm his and conviction pawn ticket would and, thus, appeal as would not not redress Wolfe s proffered injury. Accordingly, dispense with oral we dismiss argument the because the facts moot. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
