US v. Jimmott Thomas

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00035-RGD-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999761986].. [15-4382]

Appeal: 15-4382

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMOTT ANTHONY THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00035-RGD-FBS-1)

Submitted:

February 22, 2016

Decided:

February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Assistant United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4382

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jimmott Anthony Thomas appeals from the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
14

months’

imprisonment

release.

Thomas’s

and

counsel

a

36-month

has

filed

term
a

of

brief

supervised
pursuant

to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
Thomas’s

revocation

sentence

is

plainly

unreasonable

on

the

basis that the district court failed to explain its decision to
impose the 14-month prison sentence.

Thomas was informed of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
so.

The

Government

declined

to

file

a

brief.

During

the

pendency of this appeal, Thomas was released from incarceration
and began serving the 36-month term of supervised release.
We

may

address

sua

sponte

whether

an

issue

on

appeal

presents “a live case or controversy . . . since mootness goes
to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.”
Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Because Thomas

already has served his term of imprisonment, there is no longer
a

live

controversy

regarding

the

length

of

his

confinement.

Therefore, counsel’s challenge to the district court’s decision
to

impose

the

14-month

prison

term

is

moot.

See

States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283–84 (4th Cir. 2008).
2

United
However,

Appeal: 15-4382

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/25/2016

because

Thomas

release

and

is

serving

because

his

Pg: 3 of 3

the

36-month

attorney

filed

term
an

of

supervised

Anders

brief,

we

retain jurisdiction to review pursuant to Anders the district
court’s decisions to revoke Thomas’s supervised release and to
impose the 36-month term of supervised release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this

case

and

have

found

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot to the extent Thomas
seeks

to

challenge

his

14-month

prison

district court’s judgment, in part.

term

and

affirm

the

This court requires that

counsel inform Thomas, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme

Court

If Thomas

of

requests

the

United

that

a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

review.
counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Thomas.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3