Background
James Edward Storholm was sent to prison for twelve months after violating a condition of his supervised release that prohibited him from viewing child pornography or materials deemed sexually stimulating. He argued that the photographs he viewed were not sexually stimulating and that the condition was vague and overbroad as applied to his conduct. He sought release from prison based on these arguments.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that the appeal was moot because Storholm was no longer in prison when the case was heard. The court found no ongoing case or controversy, as Storholm had not suffered any concrete and continuing injury apart from his now-ended incarceration. The court noted that the supervised release condition existed independently of the revocation and was not a collateral consequence of the sentence itself. Arguments regarding the condition raised for the first time at oral argument were not considered.
There is only one problem: he is no longer there.
United States v. Storholm, 25-1584 (8th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
Defendants challenging supervised release conditions must ensure their appeals are resolved before their sentences expire or demonstrate a specific, ongoing collateral consequence to avoid dismissal for mootness.