United States of America v. Zach Leon Slaughter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZACH LEON SLAUGHTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00310-D-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2024 Decided: May 27, 2025
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Upon finding that Zach Leon Slaughter violated the conditions of his supervised
release, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 30 months’
imprisonment, after which Slaughter would resume his lifetime term of supervised release.
The court also imposed an additional condition of supervision prohibiting Slaughter from
access to the internet. Slaughter timely appealed the revocation judgment, contending that
the district court plainly erred by imposing the new condition of supervised release banning
him from using the internet. While his appeal was pending before this court, Slaughter
died.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We remand the case to the district
court with instructions to vacate that portion of the revocation judgment imposing the
challenged condition of supervised release. See United States v. DeMichael, 461 F.3d 414,
417 (3d Cir. 2006) (remanding to the district court with instructions to “abate” (i.e., vacate)
only that element of the deceased defendant’s sentence challenged on 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 AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

-- 2 of 2 --