United States of America v. Eric Andre Fields

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC ANDRE FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Robert B. Jones,
Jr., Magistrate Judge. (7:11-cr-00125-F-4)
Submitted: October 3, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Andre Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Andre Fields appeals the district court’s
pretrial detention order in his criminal case. The issue of
pretrial detention is moot after a conviction. See Murphy v.
Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982) (finding, in civil action
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to denial of
pretrial bail, that civil plaintiff’s “claim to pretrial bail
was moot once he was convicted”). Because Fields was convicted
long before this appeal was docketed, we lack jurisdiction to
address his challenge to his pretrial detention.
Fields also moves, pro se, for release pending the
resolution of his appeal of the underlying criminal judgment,
pending in No. 12-4724. A defendant seeking release pending
appeal must first move for such relief in the district court.
See United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 343-44 (2d Cir.
2000) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 9); 4th Cir. R. 9(b). Because
Fields has not moved in the district court for release pending
appeal, we deny the motion.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We also deny Fields’ motion for release pending
appeal, without prejudice to his ability to file such a motion
in the district court. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --