Rocklyn Hodge v. United States , 688 F. App'x 197 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6301
    ROCKLYN HODGE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00305-JLK-RSB)
    Submitted: April 27, 2017                                         Decided: May 4, 2017
    Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rocklyn Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Rocklyn Hodge, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
    relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2012) petition, in which he challenged his status as an armed
    career criminal based on Johnson v. United States, 
    559 U.S. 133
     (2010), and Descamps v.
    United States, 
    133 S. Ct. 2276
     (2013). While this appeal was pending, the United States
    District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Hodge’s authorized successive
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion, in which he challenged his status as an armed career
    criminal based on Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
     (2015). The district court also
    resentenced Hodge to 120 months’ imprisonment with credit for time served and directed
    the Bureau of Prisons to release Hodge from custody as expeditiously as possible. We
    have confirmed that Hodge has been released from custody.
    Accordingly, we deny Hodge leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
    appeal as moot. See United States v. Springer, 
    715 F.3d 535
    , 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
    (“Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sua sponte by a federal court
    at any stage of proceedings.”). 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6301

Citation Numbers: 688 F. App'x 197

Filed Date: 5/4/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023