US v. Christopher Bloomfield, No. 13-4394 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4394 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER JESSIE BLOOMFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cr-01135-RBH-1) Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher court s order imposing a supervised Jessie revoking his four-month release. Bloomfield term of sentence Counsel appeals supervised with has the no filed a district release further brief and term of pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Bloomfield s revocation sentence is reasonable. Because Bloomfield s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal. Bloomfield s present term of supervised release began in September petitioned 2012. the court In March for an 2013, arrest the probation warrant, officer alleging that Bloomfield had violated several terms of his supervised release. After Bloomfield admitted to violating these terms of his supervised release, the court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to four months imprisonment, but did not impose an additional term of supervised release. During released from challenging moot. the the pendency of imprisonment. this appeal, Accordingly, reasonableness of his Bloomfield his revocation was argument sentence is See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 282-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that, when defendant is no longer serving revocation sentence and no additional term of supervised release is imposed, appeal is moot); Friedman s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 2 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (whether this court is presented with a live case or controversy is a question [the court] may raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts (internal quotation marks omitted)). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. that counsel inform Bloomfield, Supreme Court of in the This court requires writing, United of his States right for to petition the further review. If Bloomfield 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 Bloomfield. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3