US v. Barefoot
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00166-BO)
May 7, 2009
June 15, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., appeals from a February 21, 2007 district court order finding, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (2006), that there was reasonable cause to believe
Barefoot was suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial. The court directed
Barefoot be remanded to the custody of the Attorney General for a period not to exceed thirty days so that a mental competency exam might be conducted and a report filed with the court. dismiss the appeal because it is moot. Barefoot was remanded to the custody of the Attorney General and found incompetent. The district court subsequently We
ordered that he be involuntarily medicated in order to restore his competency. is pending in His counsel appealed that order and the appeal this court and the the proceedings 21, stayed order in is the no
longer live, the appeal is moot.
See Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348,
354 (4th Cir. 2007) (defining "mootness"), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot and deny Barefoot's motion that all of his future filings in this appeal be sealed. We also deny his motion for oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
decisional process. DISMISSED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?