United States v. Stanko, No. 13-2994 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThe district court found that defendant's refusal to complete a Post-Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) violated a condition of his supervised release and sentenced him to seven days imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow. Defendant appealed a week after he was released, contending that the Government violated his Fifth Amendment rights by forcing him to choose between incriminating himself and violating the conditions of his supervised release. The court dismissed the appeal as moot where the possibility that defendant could face an enhanced sentence for a future crime because of his supervised release violation does not establish a concrete and continuing injury because the court must assume that defendant will conduct his future activities in accordance with the law, and the "capable of repetition" exception does not apply.
Court Description: Criminal Case - supervised release. Challenge to revocation of supervised release is moot following completion of sentence. Defendant failed to establish a continuing collateral consequences from revocation, as we must presume Stanko will conduct future activities in accordance with the law and mootness exception for cases capable of repetition yet evading review does not apply. [ August 11, 2014
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.