US v. Brandon Caudle, No. 13-4166 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON LEE CAUDLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00038-RJC-CH-2) Submitted: October 23, 2013 Decided: November 12, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew C. Joseph, LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN BUTLER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Lee Caudle appeals the district court s order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing an elevenmonth sentence with no further term of supervised release. only issues Caudle raises on appeal challenge the The district court s decision to revoke his supervised release and to impose an active prison sentence. Because Caudle s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal. Caudle s present term of supervised release began in September 2012. In October 2012, the probation officer petitioned the court for an arrest warrant, alleging that Caudle had violated several terms of his supervised release. After a hearing, the court found that Caudle had violated two of those terms. Accordingly, the court revoked Caudle s supervised release and sentenced him to eleven months imprisonment, but did not impose an additional term of supervised release. During released from challenging the the pendency of imprisonment. district this appeal, Accordingly, court s decision his to supervised release and impose sentence are moot. Caudle was arguments revoke his See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 282-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that, when defendant is no longer serving revocation sentence and no additional term of supervised release is imposed, appeal is moot); Friedman s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th 2 Cir. 2002) (whether this 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 contentions are oral we dismiss argument adequately the because presented in appeal the the as facts moot. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3