UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:04-cr-00848-PMD-4)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: November 8, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Stanley Feldman, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracie Lashaun Williams appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking her probation and imposing three months’
imprisonment. Williams’ attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of
whether Williams’ sentence was unreasonable. Williams was
informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. Because Williams has been discharged from
federal custody, because her sentence did not include a term of
supervised release, and because there are no continuing
collateral consequences from the district court’s judgment on
revocation of probation, Williams’ 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 Williams’ appeal as moot. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3