United States v. Montello Hood

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4054 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MONTELLO MARQUETTE HOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:10-cr-00707-JFA-1)

Submitted: July 17, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4054 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Montello Marquette Hood appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

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

of this appeal, Hood was released from custody. Hood’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred

in revoking Hood’s supervised release but acknowledging that the appeal likely is moot.

The Government moves to dismiss the appeal as moot. Hood was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

“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.” United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th

Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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).

Hood has already served his prison term, and the district court did not impose any

additional term of supervised release. Hood has not demonstrated any collateral

consequence of the revocation judgment, and none is apparent from the record. Thus, there

is no longer a live controversy regarding the revocation of Hood’s supervised release, and

his challenge to the revocation judgment is moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d

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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4054 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/01/2024 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 grant the

Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot. This court requires that counsel

inform Hood, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Hood 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 Hood.

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