United States v. Andrew McIntyre , 581 F. App'x 292 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW WILLIAM MCINTYRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00083-BO-1)
Submitted: August 6, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elisa Cyre Salmon, SALMON & GILMORE, LLP, Lillington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew William McIntyre appeals the district court’s
order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing an
eighteen-month sentence with no further term of supervised
release. 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 (1) plainly erred when it admitted hearsay
testimony, and (2) imposed an unreasonable sentence. McIntyre
has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the district court abused
its discretion by revoking his release and miscalculated his
criminal history. Because McIntyre’s appeal is moot, we
dismiss.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and determined, as counsel concedes, that McIntyre
has been released from federal custody and that his sentence did
not include a term of supervised release. His challenge to his
revocation and sentence is therefore moot unless he can
demonstrate “collateral consequences sufficient to meet Article
III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” United States v. Hardy,
545 F.3d 280, 284 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 11-14 (1998); Hardy
545 F.3d at 282-85. Although McIntyre summarily asserts that
the federal revocation “prejudicially impacts his ongoing
2
ability to challenge his wrongful conviction” in state court, he
offers no specifics to support this assertion and we perceive no
such impact. Because no collateral consequences are apparent
from the record, we dismiss McIntyre’s appeal as moot.
This court requires that counsel inform McIntyre, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If McIntyre 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 McIntyre.
We deny as moot the Government’s pending motion to
dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the material before this court and argument will not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3