United States v. Ardelle Dunlap, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11775
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dunlap was sentenced to one year and one day for violating his supervised release.
- No additional term of supervised release was imposed; after release, the sentence was fully discharged.
- The appeal was ordered to be dismissed as moot after Dunlap’s release.
- Dunlap argues the violation could enhance future sentences, making the appeal potentially non-moot.
- Dunlap also argues ongoing social stigma from the finding of a supervised-release violation.
- Dunlap contends the case fits the mootness exception for cases capable of repetition yet evading review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot despite potential collateral consequences? | Dunlap | Appellee | Appeal dismissed as moot |
| Can social stigma sustain a live controversy for mootness purposes? | Dunlap | Appellee | Stigma insufficient to sustain appeal |
| Does the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception apply? | Dunlap | Appellee | Exception not satisfied; appeal moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (collateral consequences insufficient to sustain mootness after sentence ends)
- O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (general expectations of prosecution do not sustain a live controversy)
- United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2012) (distinguishable; defendant still on supervised release at time of appeal)
- United States v. Wilson, 709 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinguishable; appeal involved a no-contact order, not supervised-release violation)