08-5660-cr
United States v. Pearl
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order
filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document
filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with
the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any
party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 16th day of April, two thousand ten.
Present:
José A. Cabranes,
Barrington D. Parker,
Reena Raggi,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v. No. 08-5660-cr
Brian Pearl,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________
FOR APPELLEE: Burton T. Ryan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, for
Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York, Central Islip, NY.
FOR APPELLANT: David A. Lewis, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal
Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Joseph F. Bianco, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the appeal be DISMISSED as moot.
1
Defendant Brian Pearl appeals from a November 20, 2008 order of the District Court
convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of violating the conditions of his supervised release, revoking
his supervised release, and sentencing him to fourteen months’ imprisonment.
In response to an order entered by this Court on February 17, 2010, both parties have filed
letter briefs asserting that Pearl was released from prison on October 21, 2009. As Pearl is no longer in
prison and is not serving a term of supervised release, his appeal is moot. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. 1 (1998).
Accordingly, we dismiss Pearl’s appeal as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
2