United States v. Lou Hobbs

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: May 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-3099
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-3099 September Term, 2022 1:95-cr-00104-RCL-1 Filed On: May 8, 2023 United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Lou Hobbs, also known as Lou Brown, also known as Thomas Hobbs,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Wilkins, and Katsas, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's orders entered in 94cr375 and 95cr104 on November 22, 2022, denying appellant's motion for early termination of supervised release be vacated and that this case be remanded for further proceedings. As the United States suggests in its brief, this appeal is properly treated as concerning both orders. See, e.g., Appellee's Brief at ii & n.2; Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992); Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Because the district court's reasoning in denying appellant's motion in those cases is not discernible from the record, we "remand for reconsideration with adequate explanation." See United States v. Mathis-Gardner, 783 F.3d 1286, 1286-87 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam