United States v. Melville Dancy
United States v. Melville Dancy
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4355 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVILLE DANCY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:16-cr-00861-TMC-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4355 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Melville Dancy appeals the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised release
and impose an eight-month sentence. While this appeal was pending, Dancy was released
from custody.
“When a case or controversy ceases to exist—either due to a change in the facts or
the law—the litigation is moot, and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist
also.” Porter v. Clarke,
852 F.3d 358, 363(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither
party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter,
908 F.3d 61, 65(4th Cir. 2018). Dancy has
already served his sentence and faces no additional term of supervised release; thus, there
is no longer a live controversy. Dancy’s challenge to the revocation of his supervised
release is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy,
545 F.3d 280, 283-84(4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished