US v. William Barnes, No. 13-4571 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4571 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00131-RWT-11) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: July 7, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carmen D. Hernandez, Highland, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James A. Crowell, IV, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Sykes, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Barnes appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a nine-month prison term and a three-year, nine-month term of supervised release. The only issues Barnes raises on appeal challenge the district court s decision to impose the nine-month prison term. Because Barnes appeal is moot, we dismiss it. Barnes March 2013. term of supervised release began in In April 2013, the probation officer petitioned the district court to revoke Barnes supervised release, alleging that he had violated three terms of his supervised release. After a hearing, the district court determined that Barnes had violated those terms. supervised release imprisonment and a Accordingly, the court revoked Barnes and sentenced three-year, him to nine-month term nine of months supervised release. During released from the pendency of imprisonment. this appeal, Accordingly, his Barnes was arguments challenging the district court s imposition of the nine-month prison term are moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that appellant s release from prison during pendency of appeal mooted challenge to revocation of supervised release and imposition of prison sentence); Friedman s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) 2 (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)). Accordingly, We dispense with contentions are oral we dismiss argument adequately the because presented in appeal as moot. and legal the facts the materials before this 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.
