US v. Darnell Sneed, No. 11-4739 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARNELL SNEED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00594-JKB-1) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 9, 2012 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, LaKeytria W. Felder, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darnell Sneed appeals the district court s judgment revoking his probation and imposing ninety days imprisonment. Sneed s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but unreasonable. questioning whether Sneed s sentence was Sneed was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because Sneed has completed his term of imprisonment. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and determined that Sneed has been discharged from federal custody and that his sentence did not include a term of supervised release. Because Sneed has not alleged continuing collateral consequences from the district court s judgment on revocation of probation, and no such consequences are apparent from the record, we conclude Sneed s appeal Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-18 (1998). grant the Government s motion and dismiss is moot. See Accordingly, we Sneed s appeal as inform Sneed, in moot. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the Supreme Court of the If Sneed requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 2 would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Sneed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
