USCA4 Appeal: 22-7140 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN JACKSON, a/k/a Aaron Green, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00184-1)

Submitted: May 8, 2023 Decided: July 26, 2023

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7140 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: John Jackson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for compassionate release and for reconsideration. During the pendency of this appeal, Jackson was released from incarceration.

Before addressing the merits of an appeal, we must first consider whether the 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, 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If 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.” Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). That is because “federal courts have no authority to give opinions upon moot questions . . . or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Jackson has already served his term of imprisonment, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the orders denying his motions for compassionate release and for reconsideration. We therefore dismiss the 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