United States of America v. Quandella Walker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUANDELLA WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00194-RJC-SCR-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 23, 2024
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Quandella Walker appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised
release and sentencing her to eight months’ imprisonment. During the pendency of this
appeal, Walker was released from custody. Walker’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Walker’s revocation
sentence is reasonable but acknowledging that the appeal is moot. Walker was notified of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
“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). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can
and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.” Id. “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).
Walker has already served her sentence, and she is not subject to an additional term
of supervised release. Moreover, Walker 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 Walker’s supervised release, and we are
satisfied that her challenge to the revocation judgment is moot. See United States v. Hardy,
545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

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 dismiss the appeal
as moot.
This court requires that counsel inform Walker, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Walker 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 Walker. 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

-- 3 of 3 --