UNITED STATES v. JAMES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-03-15No. No. 19-20859

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed as moot, and counsel's motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.

James's attorney sought permission to withdraw from the appeal and submitted a brief following the framework established in Anders v. California. James did not respond to this motion. However, during the appeal process, James completed his prison sentence imposed for violating supervised release and was discharged from custody. Because James's revocation sentence did not impose any additional period of supervised release beyond the completed term, there remained no actual dispute for the court to resolve on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Mootness of appeal after completion of sentence
Supervised release revocation
Withdrawal of appointed counsel

Procedural posture

James appealed a revocation of supervised release decision while represented by appointed counsel, who sought to withdraw; James was released from custody before the appeal was decided.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

The attorney appointed to represent Everly James has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). James has not filed a response. During the pendency of this appeal, James completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his supervised release and was released from custody. As Jamess revocation sentence did not include an additional term of supervised release, there is no case or controversy for us to address. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); see also United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999).

The appeal is therefore DISMISSED as moot, and counsels motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.