US v. Barefoot, No. 07-6431 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Defendant -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) Submitted: May 7, 2009 Decided: 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We dismiss the appeal because it is moot. Barefoot was remanded to the custody of the Attorney General and found incompetent. The district court subsequently ordered that he be involuntarily medicated in order to restore his competency. is pending district in court. His counsel appealed that order and the appeal this court Because and the the proceedings February longer live, the appeal is moot. 21, stayed 2007 order in is the no 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 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.