US v. Leron Fuller, No. 12-4939 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4939 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LERON J. FULLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00015-AWA-DEM-1) Submitted: May 13, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry D. Harmon, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, M. Jennifer Norako, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leron J. Fuller appeals the district court s order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a six-month sentence with no further term of supervised release. issue Fuller committed a raises on appeal procedural unreasonable. error Because his is whether rendering appeal the his is The only district sentence court plainly moot, we dismiss obstruction of the justice, appeal. Fuller was convicted of in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-460(B) (2009), as assimilated by 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13 (2006), Count court imposed a indictment. The imprisonment, followed by one Four sentence year of of a of superseding four supervised months release. Supervision began on February 1, 2012. On petition for August 27, 2012, revocation of the probation supervised officer release filed with a three violations of conditions: failure to satisfactorily participate in mental health treatment, possession of marijuana. failure to work regularly, and After a hearing, the court revoked Fuller s supervised release, finding that Fuller committed all three violations. imprisonment. terminated. his argument The court sentenced Fuller to six months of After imprisonment, the supervision was to be Because Fuller has completed serving his sentence, that the district 2 court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence is moot. 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th See Friedman s, Inc. v. Dunlap, Cir. 2002) (whether the court is presented with a live case or controversy is a question [the court] may raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, dispense with oral we dismiss argument the because 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.
