UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WALTER LEE SADLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-4243
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WALTER LEE SADLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge; Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-134-V)
Submitted: September 15, 2003 Decided: March 4, 2004
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert
James Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoefling,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Walter Lee Sadler appeals
the magistrate judge’s order directing his detention pending a
hearing on the revocation of his supervised release (No. 03-4079),
and the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and
imposing a fourteen-month custodial sentence (No. 03-4243).
Sadler’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious
issues for appeal but examines the validity of the district court’s
revocation order nevertheless. Sadler has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief though notified of his opportunity to do so.
For the following reasons, we dismiss both appeals.
Sadler’s appeal from the magistrate judge’s order
directing his pre-revocation detention is moot following his
stipulation to several violations of his supervised release and the
district court’s imposition of a post-revocation sentence. See
United States v. O’Shaughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985)
(citing Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982)). Likewise,
because Sadler has been unconditionally discharged from custody and
because there are no continuing collateral consequences from the
district court’s revocation order and sentence, Sadler’s appeal
from that order is also moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,
10 (1998).
- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore dismiss Sadler’s appeals as moot. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client 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 the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -