UNITED STATES v. HORNE (2020)

Calvin Lee Horne appeals the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised release and impose a 15-month sentence. Horne argues that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that he had committed felony larceny, a Grade B violation of his supervised release terms. While this appeal was pending, Horne was released from custody.

“When a case or controversy ceases to exist—either due to a change in the facts or the law—the litigation is moot, and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist also.” Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (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). Horne has already served his sentence and faces no further term of supervised release; thus, there is no longer a live controversy. Horne’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).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.