Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0791-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry Lee REDDS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2013.
    Carlos Arguello, II, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Harry Lee Redds, Jr., Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    William R. Burgener, Law Office of William R. Burgener, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harry Lee Redds, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Redds’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Redds the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

A review of the record indicates that this appeal is moot because Redds’s supervised release has again been revoked. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). We accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.