United States v. Luck

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4744
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLTON N. LUCK, a/k/a C-4,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-nkm-mfu-6)
Submitted: July 26, 2010 Decided: August 20, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven D. Rosenfield, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton N. Luck seeks to appeal the district court’s
amended judgment convicting him of conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and
cocaine base and sentencing him to 288 months of imprisonment.
We dismiss Luck’s appeal as moot.
“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome.” United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f 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) (quoting
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12
(1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
On appeal of the district court’s partial denial of
Luck’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), we reversed and vacated
Luck’s conviction and sentence. United States v. Luck, ___ F.3d
___, 2010 WL 2635812 (4th Cir. July 2, 2010) (No. 09-6641).
Thus, because there is no further relief we can grant Luck on
appeal, we dismiss the present appeal as moot. We deny Luck’s
motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We dispense with
2
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3