United States v. Lawrence Wilder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4874
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE WILDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00003-H-1)
Submitted: August 1, 2014 Decided: August 14, 2014
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lawrence Wilder appeals the district court’s order
revoking his term of supervised release and imposing a six-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 Wilder’s revocation sentence is
reasonable. Wilder has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by revoking his release.
Because Wilder’s appeal is moot, we dismiss.
During the pendency of this appeal, Wilder was
released from imprisonment. Accordingly, his challenge to his
revocation and sentence is 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
id. at 282-85 (holding that appeal is moot when defendant is no
longer serving revocation sentence and no additional term of
supervision is imposed); Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 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)).
Wilder has not demonstrated, nor does the record reflect, any
2
collateral consequences that extend beyond Wilder’s completion
of his sentence.
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 Wilder, in writing, of his right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Wilder 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
Wilder.
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