USCA4 Appeal: 24-4235 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZACH LEON SLAUGHTER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00310-D-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2024 Decided: May 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.

Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4235 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Upon finding that Zach Leon Slaughter violated the conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment, after which Slaughter would resume his lifetime term of supervised release.

The court also imposed an additional condition of supervision prohibiting Slaughter from access to the internet. Slaughter timely appealed the revocation judgment, contending that the district court plainly erred by imposing the new condition of supervised release banning him from using the internet. While his appeal was pending before this court, Slaughter died.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We remand the case to the district court with instructions to vacate that portion of the revocation judgment imposing the challenged condition of supervised release. See United States v. DeMichael, 461 F.3d 414, 417 (3d Cir. 2006) (remanding to the district court with instructions to “abate” (i.e., vacate) only that element of the deceased defendant’s sentence challenged on appeal). 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 AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS