United States of America v. Brandon Lee Caudle

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON LEE CAUDLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00038-RJC-CH-2)
Submitted: October 23, 2013 Decided: November 12, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew C. Joseph, LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN BUTLER, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Lee Caudle appeals the district court’s order
revoking his term of supervised release and imposing an eleven-
month sentence with no further term of supervised release. The
only issues Caudle raises on appeal challenge the district
court’s decision to revoke his supervised release and to impose
an active prison sentence. Because Caudle’s appeal is moot, we
dismiss the appeal.
Caudle’s present term of supervised release began in
September 2012. In October 2012, the probation officer
petitioned the court for an arrest warrant, alleging that Caudle
had violated several terms of his supervised release. After a
hearing, the court found that Caudle had violated two of those
terms. Accordingly, the court revoked Caudle’s supervised
release and sentenced him to eleven months’ imprisonment, but
did not impose an additional term of supervised release.
During the pendency of this appeal, Caudle was
released from imprisonment. Accordingly, his arguments
challenging the district court’s decision to revoke his
supervised release and impose sentence are moot. See United
States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 282-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding
that, when defendant is no longer serving revocation sentence
and no additional term of supervised release is imposed, appeal
is moot); Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cir. 2002) (whether this court is “presented with a live case or
controversy is a question [the court] may raise sua sponte since
mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of
the courts” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 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

-- 3 of 3 --