United States v. Darryl Kinloch

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-4326
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4326 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRYL ROBERT KINLOCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (9:10-cr-01102-MBS-1)

Submitted: April 11, 2023 Decided: August 24, 2023

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Charles W. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christopher Scott Lietzow, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4326 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Robert Kinloch appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

release and sentencing him to five months’ imprisonment. During the pendency of this

appeal, Kinloch was released from incarceration.

“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). “A case

becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article

III—when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable

interest in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Kinloch has

already served his term of imprisonment and the district court did not impose any additional

term of supervised release, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the revocation

of his supervised release. Thus, Kinloch’s challenges to the revocation of his supervised

release and the reasonableness of the revocation sentence are moot. See id.; see also United

States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).

We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot and deny the Government’s motion to

remand 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