US v. Mitchell Gatewood, No. 15-4688 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MITCHELL GATEWOOD, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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

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.