United States v. Leland Smart, Jr., 406 F. App'x 14

Smart pleaded guilty in 1993 to felon-in-possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 225 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release.
Probation proposed adding multiple site-specific restrictions culminating in a six-month GPS/home-confinement condition.
Smart agreed to most conditions but objected to the GPS monitoring at the November 2009 hearing.
District court ordered GPS monitoring for six months to ensure compliance with special site-specific conditions.
Smart appealed the GPS condition; the district court later extended monitoring after a supervised-release violation, and the government argued the appeal was moot.
The panel dismissed the appeal as moot because the six-month period expired and the capable-of-repetition exception did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Smart's appeal moot after expiration of the GPS period?	Smart	Government	Moot; six-month GPS period expired.
Does the capable-of-repetition, yet-evading-review exception apply?	Smart contends repetition may occur with new GPS orders.	No exceptional circumstance; unlikely future GPS orders.	Exception does not apply.

Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (mootness and live-controversy principle; exception requirements cited)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (capable of repetition, yet evading review standard)
McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997) (mootness and standing principles in repetitive contexts)
United States v. City of Detroit, 401 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2005) (mootness analysis and live-controversy requirement)
Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749 (S. Ct. 2009) (stay authority and preliminary relief in appellate context)
Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1942) (stay of judgment pending appeal; historical context for stays)