David Tobey v. United States , 470 F. App'x 113 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6988
DAVID H. TOBEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:03-cr-00151-DKC-1; 8:10-cv-01358-DKC)
Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Henry Tobey, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Henry Tobey appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.
2011) petition. Tobey asks us to overturn the court’s order and
conclude that he was “released from imprisonment,” see 18
U.S.C.A. § 3624(e) (West Supp. 2011), thereby commencing his
supervised release term, at the end of his original prison
sentence but before his release from Bureau of Prisons custody
pending a civil commitment hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 4248(a) (2006). After filing this appeal, however, Tobey and
the Government entered into a settlement agreement whereby Tobey
stipulated that his “release from imprisonment” was lawfully
stayed pursuant to § 4248. * We conclude this stipulation
eliminated the grounds for Tobey’s appeal and removed any
justiciable controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we
dismiss Tobey’s appeal as moot. See Townes v. Jarvis, 577 F.3d
543, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2009). We deny Tobey’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*
In the interest of justice, we take judicial notice of the
district court proceedings in the Eastern District of North
Carolina, including the settlement agreement, as they have
direct bearing on the subject matter of this case. United
States v. White, 620 F.3d 401, 416 n.14 (4th Cir. 2010);
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir.
1989).
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3