United States of America v. William Barnes

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4571
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM BARNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:06-cr-00131-RWT-11)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: July 7, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carmen D. Hernandez, Highland, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James A. Crowell, IV,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Sykes, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William Barnes appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a nine-month prison
term and a three-year, nine-month term of supervised release.
The only issues Barnes raises on appeal challenge the district
court’s decision to impose the nine-month prison term. Because
Barnes’ appeal is moot, we dismiss it.
Barnes’ term of supervised release began in
March 2013. In April 2013, the probation officer petitioned the
district court to revoke Barnes’ supervised release, alleging
that he had violated three terms of his supervised release.
After a hearing, the district court determined that Barnes had
violated those terms. Accordingly, the court revoked Barnes’
supervised release and sentenced him to nine months’
imprisonment and a three-year, nine-month term of supervised
release.
During the pendency of this appeal, Barnes was
released from imprisonment. Accordingly, his arguments
challenging the district court’s imposition of the nine-month
prison term are moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280,
284-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that appellant’s release from
prison during pendency of appeal mooted challenge to revocation
of supervised release and imposition of prison sentence);
Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(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)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
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 of 3 --