UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMAR LAMONT HAMPTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00396-TDS-4)
Submitted: December 10, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2016
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamar Lamont Hampton appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 7
months’ imprisonment followed by 29 months of supervised
release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm in part and dismiss
in part.
During the pendency of this appeal, Hampton’s prison term
ended and he began serving his new term of supervised release.
We may address sua sponte “whether we are presented with 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 Hampton has already finished serving
his term of imprisonment, there is no longer a live controversy
regarding the length of his confinement. Accordingly, counsel’s
challenge to the reasonableness of Hampton’s term of
imprisonment is moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280,
283-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that defendant’s release from
prison moots appeal of revocation sentence). However, because
Hampton is currently serving the 29-month term of supervised
release, we retain jurisdiction to review the district court’s
2
decision to impose a new term of supervised release. We
conclude that Hampton’s term of supervised release is not
plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638,
640 (4th Cir. 2013) (“We will affirm a revocation sentence if it
is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the portion of Hampton’s
appeal challenging the length of his term of imprisonment and
affirm in part the district court’s judgment in all other
respects. This court requires that counsel inform Hampton, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Hampton 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 Hampton. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3