United States v. Christopher Hill

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 15, 2022
• Docket: 22-4051
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4051 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER RON HILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00081-WO-1)

Submitted: November 3, 2022 Decided: November 15, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Veronica Lynn Edmisten, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4051 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Ron Hill began serving a five-year term of supervised release in July

2018. In August 2021, the probation officer filed a petition alleging that Hill violated the

terms of his supervised release by committing another federal, state, or local crime, and

using a controlled substance. Although the district court found Hill had violated the terms

of his supervised release by using a controlled substance, the court decided not to revoke

Hill’s supervised release; instead, it continued him on supervision but modified the

conditions of his supervision to include participation in a location monitoring home

detention program. Hill seeks to appeal this order.

While this appeal was pending, Hill committed additional violations of his

supervised release. This time, the district court revoked Hill’s supervision and sentenced

him to 29 months’ imprisonment, but ordered no additional terms of supervision. Hill has

not appealed this order.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), conceding that there are no meritorious issues for review, but questioning whether

the district court erred in failing to allow Hill to allocute, disregarding Hill’s participation

in substance abuse programs in imposing the new condition, allowing the probation officer

to begin enforcing the location monitoring home detention condition before the entry of a

written order, and considering the probation officer’s testimony. Counsel also suggests

that this appeal is now moot because Hill is no longer subject to the home detention

condition. We agree and dismiss this appeal as moot.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4051 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2022 Pg: 3 of 4

Before addressing the merits of an appeal, we must first consider whether it presents

“a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction

of the courts.” Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017). “If an

event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to

grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.”

Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). That is because

“federal courts have no authority to give opinions upon moot questions . . . or to declare

principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Although the procedural posture of this case is unusual, the district court did not

intend to revoke Hill’s supervised release at the December 2021 hearing or in its January

2022 written order. Instead, it continued Hill’s term of supervised release but imposed an

additional condition of supervised release—the location monitoring home detention

program. Hill violated the terms of this program (and committed other violations),

prompting a new round of revocation proceedings. The district court then revoked Hill’s

supervised release and imposed no additional term of supervision. Thus, Hill is no longer

subject to the home detention condition he sought to challenge, and that condition will not

be reimposed upon his release from his current term of imprisonment. Even if we were to

consider the home detention condition to constitute a term of imprisonment, this appeal is

still moot because Hill is no longer serving that sentence. See United States v. Hardy, 545

F.3d 280, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2008).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4051 Doc: 24 Filed: 11/15/2022 Pg: 4 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no grounds upon which we have jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss this appeal as

moot. This court requires that counsel inform Hill, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hill requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Hill.

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