Case ID: f-appx_392/html/0491-01.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. Anthony L. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-2925.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 12, 2010.
    Decided Aug. 19, 2010.
    Philip Benson, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kent V. Anderson, Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Anthony L. Rogers, Fort Wayne, IN, pro se.
    Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.
   ORDER

Anthony Rogers appeals from an order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a term of reimprisonment without further supervised release. Our review of the case suggested that Rogers was released from prison shortly after his appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), so we questioned whether the appeal was moot. We asked counsel to file a supplemental statement addressing that point. Counsel confirms that Rogers has been released from custody without further supervision and states that he is not aware of any collateral consequences of the revocation.

Because Rogers has already completed his sentence and faces no collateral consequences of the revocation of supervised release, this appeal can no longer provide him any relief. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-85 (4th Cir.2008); United States v. Mazzillo, 373 F.3d 181, 182 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150, 1152-53 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Shabazz, 230 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.