UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4382
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMOTT ANTHONY THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00035-RGD-FBS-1)
Submitted: February 22, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmott Anthony Thomas appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
14 months’ imprisonment and a 36-month term of supervised
release. Thomas’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
Thomas’s revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable on the
basis that the district court failed to explain its decision to
impose the 14-month prison sentence. Thomas was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
so. The Government declined to file a brief. During the
pendency of this appeal, Thomas was released from incarceration
and began serving the 36-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 Thomas
already has served his term of imprisonment, there is no longer
a live controversy regarding the length of his confinement.
Therefore, counsel’s challenge to the district court’s decision
to impose the 14-month prison term is moot. See United
States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283–84 (4th Cir. 2008). However,
2
because Thomas is serving the 36-month term of supervised
release and because his attorney filed an Anders brief, we
retain jurisdiction to review pursuant to Anders the district
court’s decisions to revoke Thomas’s supervised release and to
impose the 36-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 Thomas
seeks to challenge his 14-month prison term and affirm the
district court’s judgment, in part. This court requires that
counsel inform Thomas, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Thomas 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 Thomas.
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