US v. Kenneth Jone
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00176-RGD-DEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802853].. [15-4467]
Appeal: 15-4467
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH J. JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:14-cr-00176-RGD-DEM-1)
Submitted:
March 30, 2016
Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.
and
FLOYD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
April 25, 2016
DAVIS,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Richard J. Colgan, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Joseph Kosky, Kathleen Doughterty, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4467
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth
J.
Jones
pled
guilty
to
one
count
of
knowingly
making a false statement when attempting to purchase a firearm,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) (2012).
criminal
history
category
of
V,
Jones’
Based on a
advisory
Guidelines range was 4 to 10 months’ imprisonment.
Sentencing
The district
court sentenced Jones to 10 months’ imprisonment followed by a
three-year
term
of
supervised
release.
Jones
completed
the
custodial portion of his sentence on November 21, 2015, and is
currently serving his term of supervised release.
Jones’ sole
contention on appeal is that the district court’s miscalculation
of his criminal history category constituted plain error.
Government
responds
that
the
sentence moots his appeal.
expiration
of
Jones’
The
custodial
We agree.
Mootness is a threshold issue that “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).
no
longer
“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are
‘live’
or
the
interest in the outcome.”
496
(1969).
To
parties
lack
a
legally
cognizable
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486,
satisfy
Article
III’s
case
or
controversy
requirement, “a litigant must have suffered some actual injury
that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”
Arrow
Honor
Soc’y
v.
Heckler,
2
464
U.S.
67,
70
Iron
(1983).
Appeal: 15-4467
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 3 of 5
Redressability is present if it is “likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.”
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561
(1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Jones
posits
does
that
not
challenge
resentencing
is
his
conviction.
warranted
so
Instead,
that,
if
he
he
is
resentenced to a period shorter than 10 months, he can receive
credit from the Bureau of Prisons toward any future sentence he
might serve.
criminal
He further contends that the miscalculation of his
history
category
affects
the
determination
of
the
advisory term of imprisonment that he would face should he be
found in violation of the conditions of his supervised release.
Within
imprisonment,
concrete
and
incarceration
the
context
“once
the
continuing
or
of
challenges
convict’s
injury
parole—some
to
sentence
other
collateral
has
than
a
defendant’s
expired
the
some
now-ended
consequence
conviction—must exist if the suit is to be maintained.”
of
the
United
States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2008) (alterations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Jones, having completed
the term of imprisonment he seeks to challenge on appeal, “bears
the burden of demonstrating collateral consequences sufficient
to meet Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.”
284 (internal quotation marks omitted).
3
Id. at
Appeal: 15-4467
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 4 of 5
Because Jones already has served his term of imprisonment,
there is no longer a live controversy regarding the length of
his
confinement.
Therefore,
his
challenge
to
the
district
court’s decision to impose the 10–month prison term is moot.
See Hardy,
sentence
545
as
F.3d
moot
at
284
because
(dismissing
Hardy
had
appeal
of
completed
revocation
serving
his
sentence and failed to identify any collateral consequence).
To
the
could
extent
affect
requirement
that
future
may
not
be
Jones
argues
proceedings,
satisfied
by
that
the
the
alleged
error
case-or-controversy
the
speculation
that
a
respondent will commit an additional crime and, as a result,
serve
a
Supreme
future
sentence
of
Court,
“Respondents
imprisonment.
themselves
As
are
stated
able-and
by
the
indeed
required by law-to prevent such a possibility from occurring.”
Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632 n.13 (1982); accord Spencer
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 15 (1998); see also O’Shea v. Littleton,
414 U.S. 488, 497 (1974) (“[W]e are . . . unable to conclude
that the case-or-controversy requirement is satisfied by general
assertions or inferences that in the course of their activities
respondents
laws.
will
be
prosecuted
for
violating
valid
criminal
We assume that respondents will conduct their activities
within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction . . .
.”).
Because
Jones
fails
to
identify
a
collateral
consequence that is not dependent on the commission of another
4
Appeal: 15-4467
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/25/2016
Pg: 5 of 5
crime, we dismiss this appeal 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
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?