The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-4362•United States of America v. Brandon Christopher McLaughlin
15-4362Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 18, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4362
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON CHRISTOPHER MCLAUGHLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00677-MBS-2)
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: May 18, 2016
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy K. Raffaldt, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant.
John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Christopher McLaughlin appeals the 14-month
sentence the district court imposed upon revocation of his term
of supervised release. McLaughlin claims that the district
court failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying his
request for a sentence below the applicable Sentencing
Guidelines policy statement range. We dismiss the appeal as
moot.
During the pendency of this appeal, McLaughlin was released
from incarceration. We may 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.” Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because
McLaughlin already has served his term of imprisonment, there is
no longer a live controversy regarding the length of his
confinement. Therefore, McLaughlin’s challenge to the district
court’s imposition of the 14-month prison term is moot. United
States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.