United States v. Jonathan Hough

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-4518
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4518 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN HOUGH, a/k/a Tre,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00099-FL-1)

Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 27, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4518 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Hough seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and imposing a 21-month sentence. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds for appeal

because Hough’s appeal appears to be moot but questioning whether the district court

properly revoked Hough’s supervised release and whether the revocation sentence is

reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Hough has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief. As Anders counsel notes, Hough was released from custody while this

appeal was pending. We dismiss.

“A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Star v. TI Oldfield Dev., LLC, 962 F.3d

117, 130 (4th Cir. 2020) (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). “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).

Hough has already served his sentence, and he faced no additional term of

supervised release. Thus, there is no longer a live controversy. Hough’s challenge to the

revocation of his supervised release is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545

F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4518 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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

found no grounds upon which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

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

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hough 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 Hough. 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