United States of America v. Darryl Robert Kinloch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4326
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL ROBERT KINLOCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (9:10-cr-01102-MBS-1)
Submitted: April 11, 2023 Decided: August 24, 2023
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Charles W. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christopher
Scott Lietzow, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Robert Kinloch appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and sentencing him to five months’ imprisonment. During the pendency of this
appeal, Kinloch was released from incarceration.
“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). “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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Kinloch 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 the revocation
of his supervised release. Thus, Kinloch’s challenges to the revocation of his supervised
release and the reasonableness of the revocation sentence are moot. See id.; see also United
States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).
We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot and deny the Government’s motion to
remand as moot. 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 --