US v. Darnell Sneed

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998801494-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00594-JKB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998850747].. [11-4739]

Appeal: 11-4739

Doc: 29

Filed: 05/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4739

Doc: 29

Filed: 05/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

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

unreasonable.

questioning

whether

Sneed’s

sentence

was

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

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-18 (1998).
grant

the

Government’s

motion

and

dismiss

is

moot.

See

Accordingly, we

Sneed’s

appeal

as

inform

Sneed,

in

moot.
This
writing,

of

court

the

requires

right

to

that

petition

United States for further review.

counsel
the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Sneed requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
2

Appeal: 11-4739

Doc: 29

Filed: 05/09/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3