United States v. Christopher Bloomfield , 547 F. App'x 315 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JESSIE BLOOMFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-01135-RBH-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Jessie Bloomfield appeals the district
court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and
imposing a four-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
Bloomfield’s revocation sentence is reasonable. Because
Bloomfield’s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal.
Bloomfield’s present term of supervised release began
in September 2012. In March 2013, the probation officer
petitioned the court for an arrest warrant, alleging that
Bloomfield had violated several terms of his supervised release.
After Bloomfield admitted to violating these terms of his
supervised release, the court revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment, but did not impose
an additional term of supervised release.
During the pendency of this appeal, Bloomfield was
released from imprisonment. Accordingly, his argument
challenging the reasonableness of his revocation sentence is
moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 282-85 (4th
Cir. 2008) (holding that, when defendant is no longer serving
revocation sentence and no additional term of supervised release
is imposed, appeal is moot); Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290
2
F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (whether this court is “presented
with a live case or controversy is a question [the court] may
raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article
III jurisdiction of the courts” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. This court requires
that counsel inform Bloomfield, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bloomfield 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 Bloomfield.
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
3