US v. Andrew McIntyre, No. 14-4205 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4205 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW WILLIAM MCINTYRE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00083-BO-1) Submitted: August 6, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elisa Cyre Salmon, SALMON & GILMORE, LLP, Lillington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew William McIntyre appeals the district court s order revoking his term of supervised release and imposing an eighteen-month release. sentence Counsel California, 386 meritorious issues district court has U.S. (1) with no filed a 738 for further brief (1967), appeal, plainly term erred supervised to Anders pursuant stating but of that questioning when it there are whether admitted testimony, and (2) imposed an unreasonable sentence. v. no the hearsay McIntyre has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his release and miscalculated his criminal history. Because McIntyre s appeal is moot, we dismiss. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and determined, as counsel concedes, that McIntyre has been released from federal custody and that his sentence did not include a term of supervised release. revocation and sentence is therefore His challenge to his moot unless he can demonstrate collateral consequences sufficient to meet Article III s case-or-controversy requirement. 545 F.3d 280, 284 (4th Cir. 2008) United States v. Hardy, (internal quotation marks omitted); see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 11-14 (1998); Hardy 545 F.3d at 282-85. the federal Although McIntyre summarily asserts that revocation prejudicially 2 impacts his ongoing ability to challenge his wrongful conviction in state court, he offers no specifics to support this assertion and we perceive no such impact. Because no collateral consequences are apparent from the record, we dismiss McIntyre s appeal as moot. This court requires that counsel inform McIntyre, in writing, of his right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If McIntyre requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 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 McIntyre. We deny as moot the Government s pending motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will 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.
