United States of America v. James Lee Workman

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES LEE WORKMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00003-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: June 2, 2020

Before KEENAN, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald
Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

James Lee Workman appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised
release and imposing a 24-month revocation sentence with no additional supervision to
follow. Workman’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. While this appeal
was pending, Workman was released from federal custody.
“When a case or controversy ceases to exist—either due to a change in the facts or
the law—the litigation is moot, and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist
also.” Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither
party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). Workman
has already served his sentence, faces no further term of supervised release, and suggests
no other collateral consequences sufficient to meet the case or controversy requirement;
thus, there is no longer a live controversy. Workman’s challenge to the revocation of his
supervised release and revocation sentence is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy,
545 F.3d 280, 284 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED