US v. Tracie Williams, No. 09-5150 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5150 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRACIE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:04-cr-00848-PMD-4) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: November 8, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Stanley Feldman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracie Lashaun Williams appeals the district court s judgment revoking imprisonment. her probation Williams and attorney imposing filed a three brief months pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious whether grounds Williams for appeal sentence was but raising the unreasonable. issue Williams of was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Because Williams has been discharged from federal custody, because her sentence did not include a term of supervised release, and because there are no continuing collateral consequences from the district court s judgment on revocation of probation, Williams appeal is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 10 (1998). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. dismiss Williams appeal as moot. This We therefore court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. the client requests that a petition be filed, but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. was served on this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof the client. We 2 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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.