UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4661
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GALEN CLIFTON SHAWVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00262-TDS-2)
Submitted: May 5, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duane K. Bryant, LAW OFFICE OF DUANE K. BRYANT, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,
Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In 2001, a federal jury convicted Galen Clifton Shawver of
several counts of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, and money
laundering. He was sentenced to 132 months of imprisonment,
followed by 3 years of supervised release. The district court
subsequently found that Shawver had violated the terms of his
supervised release. The court revoked Shawver’s supervised
release and sentenced him to 2 months of imprisonment, followed
by 34 months of supervised release.
After his release from incarceration, the court again
revoked Shawver’s supervised release and sentenced him to 30
days of imprisonment, without imposing a further term of
supervised release. Shawver appeals, and on appeal counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether the court abused its discretion in
revoking Shawver’s supervised release and whether his sentence
is plainly unreasonable. Shawver has also filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising additional issues. During the
pendency of this appeal, Shawver was released from
incarceration. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss
Shawver’s appeal as moot.
Although the parties have not raised the issue, we may
address the issue of mootness sua sponte, “since mootness goes
to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.”
2
Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] case is moot when the
issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” United States v.
Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Upon the expiration of a defendant’s sentence
“some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended
incarceration or parole -- some collateral consequence of the
conviction -- must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Shawver has been unconditionally released from
incarceration for the supervised release revocation. Shawver
has failed to identify any collateral consequences stemming from
that revocation and we can discern none. See Hardy, 545 F.3d at
284-85. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot and deny
Shawver’s motion to expedite the decision.
This court requires that counsel inform Shawver, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Shawver 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 Shawver. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4