United States v. Tina Belcastro ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4907
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TINA BELCASTRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00056-IMK-JSK-5)
Submitted: May 15, 2013 Decided: May 30, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Apellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tina Belcastro appeals her conviction and eight-month
sentence imposed pursuant to her guilty plea to distributing
Buprenorphine with 1000 feet of public housing. Counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court erred by not
sentencing Belcastro to a lower sentence and by providing
inadequate explanation for the sentence. Neither Belcastro nor
the Government has filed a brief. After a review of the entire
record, we affirm.
Belcastro was released from prison on February 15,
2013, to serve her three-year supervised release term. Thus,
there is no longer any live controversy regarding the length of
Belcastro’s confinement, and her challenge to the length of her
prison term is therefore moot. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S.
40, 55-56 (1968); United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535,
537 (9th cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in
part, insofar as it challenges the length of Belcastro’s prison
sentence.
We have reviewed the remainder of the record in
accordance with Anders, and we find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Belcastro’s conviction as well
as her term of supervised release. This court requires that
2
counsel inform Belcastro in writing of her right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Belcastro requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Belcastro. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3