UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4729
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANNY ALONOZA SURRATT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (4:93-cr-00083-LHT)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold M. Vaught, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danny Alonoza Surratt appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and imposing a four-month custodial
sentence. Surratt’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Surratt’s sentence
violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Surratt has been informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
During the pendency of this appeal, Surratt has been
discharged from federal custody. Moreover, his sentence did not
include a term of supervised release, and there are no continuing
collateral consequences from the district court’s judgment on
revocation of supervised release. Accordingly, the appeal is moot.
See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 10 (1998).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
dismiss Surratt’s appeal as moot. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition to 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
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -