UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARNELL SNEED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00594-JKB-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 9, 2012
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, LaKeytria W. Felder,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darnell Sneed appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his probation and imposing ninety days’ imprisonment.
Sneed’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but questioning whether Sneed’s sentence was
unreasonable. Sneed was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because Sneed has
completed his term of imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and determined that Sneed has been discharged from
federal custody and that his sentence did not include a term of
supervised release. Because Sneed has not alleged continuing
collateral consequences from the district court’s judgment on
revocation of probation, and no such consequences are apparent
from the record, we conclude Sneed’s appeal is moot. See
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-18 (1998). Accordingly, we
grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Sneed’s appeal as
moot.
This court requires that counsel inform Sneed, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Sneed requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
2
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 Sneed.
We dispense with oral argument 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