United States v. Gilmore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADELAIDE L. GILMORE, a/k/a Adelaide K. Williams,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00124-RBS-JEB-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph Kosky,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adelaide L. Gilmore appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion for release pending the appeal. Gilmore’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
justifying release pending appeal but questioning whether
Gilmore has presented a substantial issue in her appeal of her
conviction and sixty-month sentence for making a false statement
to obtain federal employees’ compensation. ∗ Because we have
dismissed Gilmore’s appeal from the underlying criminal
judgment, her appeal from the court’s order denying release
pending appeal is moot.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. This court
requires that counsel inform Gilmore, in writing, of her right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Gilmore 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 Gilmore. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
∗
Counsel notified Gilmore of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but Gilmore has not filed one.
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3