US v. Eric Riley, No. 14-4761 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC RILEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00072-5) Submitted: April 20, 2015 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 18, 2015 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra Kilgore, BURTON KILGORE & BALDWIN, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Riley appeals the district court’s amended order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 14 months of imprisonment and 12 months of supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning revoking Riley’s whether term of the district supervised court plainly release revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. and erred whether in the Riley was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. During the pendency of this appeal, Riley’s prison term ended, and he began serving his new term of supervised release. We may address sua sponte “whether we are presented with a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article Inc. v. III Dunlap, jurisdiction 290 F.3d quotation marks omitted). term of imprisonment, of 191, 197 the courts.” (4th Cir. Friedman’s, 2002) (internal Because Riley has already served his there is no longer regarding the length of his confinement. a live controversy Accordingly, counsel’s challenge to the reasonableness of Riley’s term of imprisonment is moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that defendant’s release from prison moots 2 appeal of revocation sentence). However, because Riley is currently serving the 12-month term of supervised release, we retain jurisdiction to review the district court’s decisions to revoke Riley’s supervised release and to impose a new term of supervised release. Counsel questions whether the district court plainly erred by failing contest to to explicitly the voluntary. inquire supervised Because Riley whether release did not Riley’s violation raise was this district court, our review is for plain error. plea of knowing issue in no and the See Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013) (explaining plain error review). “A defendant's supervised release cannot be revoked without a full hearing unless the defendant knowingly and voluntarily admits to the allegations against [him] and waives [his] rights under Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” United States v. Farrell, 393 F.3d 498, 500 (4th Cir. 2005). A knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to a full revocation hearing may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and without a formal colloquy with the defendant. Id.; see United States v. Stehl, 665 F.2d 58, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1981) (holding that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 “has no application revocation proceedings”). 3 to [supervised release] After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances indicate that Riley’s plea of no contest to the revocation violation was knowing and voluntary. The court, therefore, did not err — plainly or otherwise — by failing plea. to explicitly inquire into the voluntariness of the We also conclude that Riley’s 12-month term of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) (“We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot to the extent Riley seeks to challenge his 14-month term of imprisonment and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Riley, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Riley requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in and legal court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Riley. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 5
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.
