USCA4 Appeal: 22-4288 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY EARL REYNOLDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:13-cr-00003-NKM-3)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Jonathan Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4288 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Earl Reynolds appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised

release and the resulting sentence of four months’ imprisonment. He argues that the

sentence was plainly unreasonable because his involuntary acts caused by his addiction

were the reasons for any breach of trust. Reynolds was released from custody on

September 30, 2022, and faces no additional term of supervised release.

We must 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.” Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions,

(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Because Reynolds has already served his term of imprisonment and the

district court did not impose any additional term of supervised release, there is no longer a

live controversy regarding his revocation sentence. His appeal is therefore moot, and we

dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Hardy,

(4th

Cir. 2008). 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