US v. Mitchell Gatewood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00054-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999934014].. [15-4688]

Appeal: 15-4688

Doc: 39

Filed: 09/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MITCHELL GATEWOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00054-RJC-1)

Submitted:

August 26, 2016

Decided:

September 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Richard L. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR.,
Monroe, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4688

Doc: 39

Filed: 09/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mitchell

Gatewood

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 7
months’ imprisonment and an 18–month term of supervised release.
Gatewood’s

counsel

California,

386

meritorious

has

U.S.

issues

Gatewood’s

filed

738

brief

(1967),

for

revocation

a

pursuant

stating

appeal,
sentence

but
is

to

that

Anders

there

are

questioning
plainly

v.
no

whether

unreasonable.

Gatewood was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so.
a

brief.

During

the

The Government declined to file

pendency

of

this

appeal,

Gatewood

was

released from incarceration and began serving the 18–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

Gatewood already has served his term of imprisonment, there is
no

longer

confinement.

a

live

controversy

Therefore,

regarding

counsel’s

the

challenge

length
to

the

of

his

district

court’s decision to impose the seven–month prison term is moot.
See

United

2008).

States

v.

Hardy,

545

F.3d

280,

283-84

(4th

Cir.

However, because Gatewood is still serving the 18–month
2

Appeal: 15-4688

Doc: 39

Filed: 09/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

term of supervised release, and because his attorney filed an
Anders

brief,

Anders

the

we

retain

district

jurisdiction

court’s

to

decisions

review

to

pursuant

revoke

to

Gatewood’s

supervised release and to impose the 18–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.
therefore

dismiss

the

appeal

as

moot

to

the

extent

We

Gatewood

seeks to challenge his seven–month prison term and affirm the
district court’s judgment in all other respects.

This court

requires that counsel inform Gatewood, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If Gatewood requests that a petition be filed, but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Gatewood.

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