US v. Brandon McLaughlin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00677-MBS-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999826176]. [15-4362]

Appeal: 15-4362

Doc: 22

Filed: 05/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON CHRISTOPHER MCLAUGHLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00677-MBS-2)

Submitted:

December 22, 2015

Decided:

May 18, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy K. Raffaldt, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant.
John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4362

Doc: 22

Filed: 05/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Brandon

Christopher

McLaughlin

appeals

the

14-month

sentence the district court imposed upon revocation of his term
of

supervised

release.

McLaughlin

claims

that

the

district

court failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying his
request

for

a

sentence

below

Guidelines policy statement range.

the

applicable

Sentencing

We dismiss the appeal as

moot.
During the pendency of this appeal, McLaughlin was released
from incarceration.

We may address sua sponte whether an issue

on appeal presents “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.

(internal

2002)

quotation

marks

omitted).

Because

McLaughlin already has served his term of imprisonment, there is
no

longer

confinement.

a

live

controversy

regarding

the

length

of

his

Therefore, McLaughlin’s challenge to the district

court’s imposition of the 14-month prison term is moot.

United

States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

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