UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4939
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LERON J. FULLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-00015-AWA-DEM-1)
Submitted: May 13, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry D. Harmon, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, M. Jennifer Norako, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leron J. Fuller appeals the district court’s order
revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a six-month
sentence with no further term of supervised release. The only
issue Fuller raises on appeal is whether the district court
committed a procedural error rendering his sentence plainly
unreasonable. Because his appeal is moot, we dismiss the
appeal.
Fuller was convicted of obstruction of justice, in
violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-460(B) (2009), as assimilated
by 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13 (2006), Count Four of a superseding
indictment. The court imposed a sentence of four months’
imprisonment, followed by one year of supervised release.
Supervision began on February 1, 2012.
On August 27, 2012, the probation officer filed a
petition for revocation of supervised release with three
violations of conditions: failure to satisfactorily participate
in mental health treatment, failure to work regularly, and
possession of marijuana. After a hearing, the court revoked
Fuller’s supervised release, finding that Fuller committed all
three violations. The court sentenced Fuller to six months of
imprisonment. After imprisonment, the supervision was to be
terminated. Because Fuller has completed serving his sentence,
his argument that the district court procedurally erred in
2
imposing his sentence is moot. See Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap,
290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (whether the court is
“presented with a live case or controversy is a question [the
court] may raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of
the Article III jurisdiction of the courts” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3