UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE HARGROVE,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 98-7348

MACK JARVIS,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-97-553-5-F)

Submitted: January 19, 1999

Decided: February 11, 1999

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Lee Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CARO-
LINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court's order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). In March 1993 Hargrove received two concur-
rent five year sentences from the North Carolina Superior Court as a
result of his assault on a government official and possession of
cocaine. These sentences were then suspended on the condition of
Hargrove's good behavior. On August 19, 1996, those sentences were
reactivated, and on August 21, 1996, Hargrove received two addi-
tional sentences, one for 120 days and the other for ten months. These
sentences also ran concurrently.

In July 1997, following the expiration of the 1996 sentences, Har-
grove filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court.
The district court ordered Hargrove to particularize his petition as to
which sentences he was challenging, and Hargrove responded that he
was challenging the 1996 convictions. The district court dismissed
Hargrove's petition because Hargrove had completed his sentence on
the 1996 convictions.

Although the invalidation of Hargrove's 1996 sentences could con-
ceivably have affected his 1993 sentences, we need not decide
whether the district court was with or without jurisdiction to entertain
the habeas petition. Hargrove was paroled from the sentence imposed
upon the 1993 convictions in November 1997 and, according to infor-
mation he provided, was set to be released from parole in November
1998. Because he is not in custody on either the 1996 or the 1993
convictions, the issues he presented are no longer live. See Leonard
v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842-43 (4th Cir. 1986). As such, even if
the district court had jurisdiction to consider Hargrove's petition, his
appeal is now moot. Thus, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Hargrove's motion for appointment of appellant counsel, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with 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

                    2
