United States v. Octavius Coplen, No. 18-1052 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant has served his revocation sentence and, as there are no identifiable collateral consequences, the appeal dismissed as moot. [ July 23, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1052 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Octavius Devon Coplen lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: May 14, 2018 Filed: July 24, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BEAM and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Octavius Coplen, having been released from custody, began a four-year term of supervised release on August 24, 2017. From the outset of the supervised release period, the United States Probation Office had difficulty locating Coplen at the residence where he had indicated he planned to reside. After numerous unsuccessful attempts–ultimately over a span of nearly four-months–to conduct home visits at the designated residence, the probation office filed a request to modify Coplen's conditions of supervised release. The petition alleged Coplen violated his conditions by failing to notify the probation office of a change in residence, and asked for a modification requiring Coplen to wear a monitoring device. The district court1 found by a preponderance of the evidence that Coplen had violated the conditions of supervised release, and modified his supervision to require him to wear a GPS monitor for the next 120 days. This order was entered on December 19, 2017. Coplen appealed and his case was submitted to this court on May 14, 2018. At the time of submission, counsel for both Coplen and the government informed the court that the 120-day GPS monitoring period ended on April 16, 2018, and the device was removed from Coplen at that time. The sole issue in this appeal is the propriety of the finding that Coplen violated his supervision conditions and the attachment of the GPS monitor. Because the revocation sentence has been served (the monitor has been removed), and Coplen has not identified any collateral consequences that might amount to a concrete and continuing injury based upon the revocation, we find that the case is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (holding that an individual who challenges a parole revocation and has completed the term imposed must demonstrate "some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole"); United States v. Stanko, 762 F.3d 826, 828 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (noting that the possibility of a supervised release violation being held against the defendant in a future proceeding did not establish a concrete and continuing injury). The appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
