UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4617
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TYANNA CELESTE ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00128-NCT-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2015 Decided: February 25, 2015
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyanna Celeste Robinson appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to
10 months’ imprisonment and a 12-month term of supervised
release. Robinson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court erred in imposing a sentence where the
purpose of the 10-month prison term was to provide
rehabilitation. Robinson was informed of her right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done so. The
Government declined to file a brief. During the pendency of
this appeal, Robinson was released from incarceration and began
serving the 12-month term of supervised release.
We may address sua sponte whether an issue on appeal
presents “a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes
to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.”
Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because
Robinson already has served her term of imprisonment, there is
no longer a live controversy regarding the length of her
confinement. Therefore, counsel’s challenge to the district
court’s decision to impose the 10-month prison term is moot.
See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283–84 (4th Cir.
2
2008). However, because Robinson is serving the 12-month term
of supervised release and because her attorney filed an Anders
brief, we retain jurisdiction to review pursuant to Anders the
district court’s decisions to revoke Robinson’s supervised
release and to impose the 12-month term of supervised release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore dismiss the appeal as moot to the extent Robinson
seeks to challenge her 10-month prison sentence and affirm the
district court’s judgment, in part. This court requires that
counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Robinson 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
Robinson.
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3