United States of America v. Jonathan Hough, a/k/a Tre

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4518
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN HOUGH, a/k/a Tre,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00099-FL-1)
Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 27, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Hough seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and imposing a 21-month sentence. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds for appeal
because Hough’s appeal appears to be moot but questioning whether the district court
properly revoked Hough’s supervised release and whether the revocation sentence is
reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Hough has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. As Anders counsel notes, Hough was released from custody while this
appeal was pending. We dismiss.
“A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Star v. TI Oldfield Dev., LLC, 962 F.3d
117, 130 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because mootness is
jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.” United States
v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). “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).
Hough has already served his sentence, and he faced no additional term of
supervised release. Thus, there is no longer a live controversy. Hough’s challenge to the
revocation of his supervised release is therefore 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 Hough, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hough 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 Hough. 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 --