US v. Lamar Hampton, No. 15-4410 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4410 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMAR LAMONT HAMPTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00396-TDS-4) Submitted: December 10, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2016 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamar Lamont Hampton appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 7 months’ imprisonment followed release. Counsel filed California, 386 meritorious has U.S. grounds 738 for by a sentence is plainly unreasonable. months brief (1967), appeal, 29 pursuant stating but of that questioning supervised to Anders there are whether v. no the We affirm in part and dismiss in part. During the pendency of this appeal, Hampton’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 III jurisdiction of the courts.” Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Hampton has already finished serving his term of imprisonment, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the length of his confinement. challenge to the imprisonment is moot. reasonableness of Accordingly, counsel’s Hampton’s term of See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that defendant’s release from prison moots appeal of revocation sentence). However, because Hampton is currently serving the 29-month term of supervised release, we retain jurisdiction to review the district court’s 2 decision to impose conclude that a new Hampton’s plainly unreasonable. term term of of supervised supervised release. release We is not 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.”). Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the portion of Hampton’s appeal challenging the length of his term of imprisonment and affirm in respects. writing, part the district court’s judgment in all other This court requires that counsel inform Hampton, in of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Hampton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hampton. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
