United States v. Walter Mattison, Jr. ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4246 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER LEE MATTISON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:15-cr-00302-HMH-1)
Submitted: November 7, 2022 Decided: November 16, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Adair F.
Boroughs, United States Attorney, Winston I. Marosek, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4246 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Walter Lee Mattison, Jr., appeals the eight-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of his supervised release. During the pendency of this appeal, Mattison was
released from incarceration.
“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). “A case
becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article
III—when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Mattison 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 the revocation
sentence. Thus, Mattison’s challenge to the reasonableness of the revocation sentence is
moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).
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
2