United States v. Dangelo Erving, No. 17-1073 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant seeks only reversal of the revocation of his supervised release, and because he has served his sentence and is not subject to any further term of supervised release, the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1073 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dangelo M. Erving lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: November 17, 2017 Filed: February 2, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dangelo Erving appeals a district court1 order revoking his supervised release. But Erving was released from custody on November 3, 2017, two weeks before his 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. appeal was submitted to this panel. Before we can proceed to the merits of Erving’s arguments on appeal, we must satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction. We are “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam). Because Erving’s postrevocation sentence of incarceration has been discharged, we can consider the appeal of his revocation sentence only if there is some ongoing “collateral consequence” of the revocation or incarceration. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). In other words, he must show that he has a “concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole.” Id. Erving seeks only reversal of the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. His post-revocation sentence is discharged, he received no new term of supervised release, and he has not identified any collateral consequences that amount to a concrete and continuing injury. Under these circumstances, Erving presents no case or controversy for us to resolve. The appeal is dismissed as moot. ______________________________ -2-
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.
