United States of America v. Jeffrey Earl Reynolds

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY EARL REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:13-cr-00003-NKM-3)
Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Jonathan Jones, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Earl Reynolds appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised
release and the resulting sentence of four months’ imprisonment. He argues that the
sentence was plainly unreasonable because his involuntary acts caused by his addiction
were the reasons for any breach of trust. Reynolds was released from custody on
September 30, 2022, and faces no additional term of supervised release.
We must address sua sponte whether an issue on appeal presents “a live case or
controversy . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the
courts.” Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Because Reynolds 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 his revocation sentence. His appeal is therefore moot, and we
dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th
Cir. 2008). 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

-- 2 of 2 --