US v. Jamie Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00211-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999975666].. [16-6877]

Appeal: 16-6877

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6877

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE EARL SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00211-D-1)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 28, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Clayton Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Leslie Katherine
Cooley, Assistant United States Attorney, Dena Janae King,
Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6877

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jamie Earl Smith appeals the district court’s order denying
his

18

U.S.C.

reduction.
term

of

§ 3582(c)(2)

(2012)

motion

for

a

sentence

While Smith’s appeal was pending, he completed his

imprisonment

and

was

released

from

prison.

“Given

[appellant’s] release from prison, there is no wrong to remedy
and

an

appeal

should

be

dismissed

when,

by

virtue

of

an

intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual
relief whatever in favor of the appellant.”
Hardy,

545

F.3d

280,

285

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2008)

(alteration

and

internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Booker, 645
F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (explaining that “[a]ny
termination of supervised release must be sought by a motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)”).
appeal as moot.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Accordingly, we dismiss this

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

2