United States v. Anthony Mobley

USCA11 Case: 24-10323 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 24-10323 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTHONY MOBLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00101-WTM-CLR-1

____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In January 2023, the District Court revoked Anthony Mobley’s supervised release and sentence him to 37 months in prison, followed by no additional term of supervised release.

USCA11 Case: 24-10323 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 24-10323 Mobley appealed the revocation of his supervised release, arguing that his lawyer’s refusal to call a witness at his revocation hearing constituted a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. While his appeal was pending, Mobley was released from Federal Bureau of Prisons custody because he com- pleted his sentence. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, and Mobley did not respond to that motion.

“A case is moot when it no longer presents a live contro- versy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 28 F.3d 1093, 1096 (11th Cir. 1994). “[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” Church of Scien- tology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S. Ct. 447, 449 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Incarcerated people and those serving terms of supervised release can always satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement to challenge their convictions or supervised release revocations be- cause those ongoing limitations on their liberty constitute concrete injuries. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983 (1998). “Once the convict’s sentence has expired, however, some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarcer- ation or parole—some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction— must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. While we will pre- sume that a wrongful criminal conviction has continuing collateral consequences, we do not make such a presumption about the

USCA11 Case: 24-10323 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2026 Page: 3 of 3 24-10323 Opinion of the Court 3 wrongful revocation of supervised release. See id. at 14, 118 S. Ct. at 986. Thus, in order to maintain this appeal, Mobley must affirm- atively show that he faces collateral consequences because of his supervised release revocation. Id. Since Mobley made no response to the Government’s mootness argument, we cannot find that he will suffer continuing collateral consequences as a result of his su- pervised release revocation.

It would be impossible for us to grant Mobley effectual re- lief, so we must dismiss his appeal as moot.

DISMISSED.