United States of America v. Roy Lee Dykes

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY LEE DYKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-4099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY LEE DYKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-7494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
v.
ROY LEE DYKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: August 17, 2022 Decided: August 30, 2022
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 20-7220 and 21-7494, affirmed; No. 21-4099, dismissed by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Roy Lee Dykes, Appellant Pro Se. S. Cagle Juhan, Charlottesville, Virginia, Martha
Suzanne Kerney-Quillen, Whitney Demain Pierce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Roy Lee Dykes appeals from the district court’s
orders denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
and denying reconsideration; its order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion and related
request for an evidentiary hearing to correct alleged purposeful alterations to the criminal
trial transcript; and its orders holding Dykes’ subsequent motion for compassionate release
in abeyance and denying reconsideration of that order. We affirm the district court’s orders
in Nos. 20-7220 and 21-7494 and dismiss the appeal in No. 21-4099 for lack of jurisdiction.
First, upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s determination that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate
release. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of
review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we deny Dykes’ motion to file
a supplemental informal brief, and we affirm the district court’s orders in No. 20-7220
denying Dykes’ motion for compassionate release and denying reconsideration.* Next,
because we similarly discern no reversible error in the district court’s order denying Dykes’
Rule 36 motion and request for an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the court’s order in
No. 21-7494 denying Dykes’ requested relief.
Finally, we note that after Dykes filed the appeal in No. 21-4099 challenging the
district court’s decision to hold his subsequent motion for compassionate release in
* To the extent Dykes argues that his request was for home confinement, rather than
for compassionate release, the district court lacked authority to grant that relief. United
States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
abeyance, the district court entered an order denying the motion. Because the district court
has ruled on Dykes’ motion and it is no longer in abeyance, we are unable to grant Dykes
the relief he requests on appeal—to remand the case to the district court for a ruling—and
therefore the appeal is moot. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007)
(explaining that mootness is a jurisdictional question this court may raise sua sponte, and
that, “[i]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for
the court to grant any effectual relief . . . to a prevailing party, the appeal [is moot and]
must be dismissed”). Accordingly, we dismiss Dykes’ appeal in No. 21-4099 for lack of
jurisdiction.
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.
Nos. 20-7220 and 21-7494, AFFIRMED;
No. 21-4099, DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --