United States v. Mitchell Gatewood , 669 F. App'x 93 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MITCHELL GATEWOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00054-RJC-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2016 Decided: September 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Richard L. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR.,
Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell Gatewood appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 7
months’ imprisonment and an 18–month term of supervised release.
Gatewood’s 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
Gatewood’s revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable.
Gatewood was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so. The Government declined to file
a brief. During the pendency of this appeal, Gatewood was
released from incarceration and began serving the 18–month term
of supervised release.
We may address sua sponte whether an issue on appeal
presents “a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes
to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.”
Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because
Gatewood already has served his term of imprisonment, there is
no longer a live controversy regarding the length of his
confinement. Therefore, counsel’s challenge to the district
court’s decision to impose the seven–month prison term is moot.
See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-84 (4th Cir.
2008). However, because Gatewood is still serving the 18–month
2
term of supervised release, and because his attorney filed an
Anders brief, we retain jurisdiction to review pursuant to
Anders the district court’s decisions to revoke Gatewood’s
supervised release and to impose the 18–month term of supervised
release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore dismiss the appeal as moot to the extent Gatewood
seeks to challenge his seven–month prison term and affirm the
district court’s judgment in all other respects. This court
requires that counsel inform Gatewood, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Gatewood 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 Gatewood. 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