United States v. William Leslie New

USCA11 Case: 22-10562 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10562
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM LESLIE NEW,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00116-TFM-B-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10562 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10562
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Domingo Soto, appointed counsel for William Leslie New
in this appeal from the district court’s judgment revoking New’s
supervised release and ordering him imprisoned, has filed a motion
to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Before we can consider
counsel’s motion, however, we must determine whether we have
jurisdiction.
In 2015, New was convicted of making a false statement in
connection with an attempt to acquire a firearm and was sentenced
to 21 months’ imprisonment followed by a term of supervised re-
lease. On multiple occasions, the district court found that New had
violated the terms of his supervised release and revoked his super-
vised release. Most recently, in October 2021, the district court
found that New violated the terms of his supervised release by us-
ing cocaine. The district court revoked New’s supervised release
and sentenced him to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment, with no
supervised release term to follow. The court ordered New to begin
serving his sentence in January 2022. New appealed in February
2022. Soto was later appointed to represent New and, seeing no
arguable issue of merit, moved to withdraw. New was released
from imprisonment in January 2023.
USCA11 Case: 22-10562 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-10562 Opinion of the Court 3
Because of New’s release, we must consider whether this ap-
peal is moot. We have no authority “to give opinions upon moot
questions . . . or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot
affect the matter in issue in the case before [us].” Christian Coal. of
Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). A case is moot “when it no longer
presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give
meaningful relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). One is-
sue in a case may become moot, but the case as a whole remains
alive so long as other issues have not become moot. Univ. of Tex.
v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 394 (1981).
A defendant’s release from custody does not moot his case
so long as he is still serving a term of supervised release because he
remains subject to a restraint on liberty. United States v. Page,
69 F.3d 482, 487 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995). In addition, the case of a de-
fendant who is no longer in custody or serving a term of supervised
release is not moot so long as the defendant experiences some con-
tinuing collateral consequence from the judgment he is seeking to
challenge. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998). In general, we
“presume that a wrongful criminal conviction has continuing col-
lateral consequences.” Id. But this same presumption does not ap-
ply when a defendant who is no longer in custody or serving a term
of supervised release challenges a judgment that revoked his super-
vised release. See id. at 14. Such a defendant may challenge a revo-
cation decision only if he can show that he faces actual collateral
USCA11 Case: 22-10562 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10562
consequences as a result of the revocation decision. See Mattern v.
Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 494 F.3d 1282, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, the judgment New is appealing did not convict him of
any crime or impose any term of supervised release. Instead, it
found that he had violated the terms of his supervised release and
ordered him reincarcerated on a prior conviction. That period of
reincarceration “is now over[] and cannot be undone.” Spencer,
523 U.S. at 8. In addition, we see no indication that New faces any
collateral consequence as a result of the revocation decision. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that this appeal no longer presents a live
controversy as to which we can grant meaningful relief.
We DISMISS this appeal as moot and DENY AS MOOT all
pending motions, including Soto’s motion to withdraw.
APPEAL DISMISSED.