United States of America v. Theresa Thiemann

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-5026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
THERESA THIEMANN
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 04-cr-00256)
District Judge: Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 9, 2008
BEFORE: BARRY and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and RESTANI,* Judge
(Opinion Filed: June 6, 2008)
*Hon. Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Theresa Thiemann pled guilty to bank larceny and was sentenced at the
upper end of the suggested Guideline range to six months’ incarceration followed by one
year of supervised release. This appeal followed.
Thiemann’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967).
I.
Thiemann was released from prison on March 20, 2007, and her supervised release
term has expired. This means that if this appeal consisted solely of an attack on her
sentence of incarceration and/or her supervised release, it would be moot and we would
be without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Cf. United States v. Jackson, No. 06-5205,
2008 WL 1776582 (3d Cir., March 13, 2008). However, because Thiemann’s conviction
carries collateral consequences and because we are required under Anders to
independently review that conviction, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain
this appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 745.
II.
We have reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel for the government and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Thiemann that there are no non-frivolous issues presented by this appeal. Specifically,
there are no non-frivolous issues with respect to jurisdiction or with respect to the validity
or voluntariness of Thiemann’s plea; and, as explained above, any issue with respect to
the legality or reasonableness of her sentence is moot. We find no error.
III.
We are satisfied that Thiemann’s counsel has adequately fulfilled the requirements
of Rule 109.2, and his motion to withdraw will be granted. The issues presented in this
appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --