Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04217/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adelaide L. Gilmore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADELAIDE L. GILMORE, a/k/a Adelaide K. Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:09-cr-00124-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: August 6, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph Kosky, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adelaide L. Gilmore appeals the district court’s order 

denying her motion for release pending the appeal. Gilmore’s 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues 

justifying release pending appeal but questioning whether 

Gilmore has presented a substantial issue in her appeal of her 

conviction and sixty-month sentence for making a false statement 

to obtain federal employees’ compensation.∗

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. This court 

requires that counsel inform Gilmore, in writing, of her right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Gilmore 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 Gilmore. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 Because we have 

dismissed Gilmore’s appeal from the underlying criminal 

judgment, her appeal from the court’s order denying release 

pending appeal is moot.

 ∗ Counsel notified Gilmore of her right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but Gilmore has not filed one.

Appeal: 10-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-4217 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/06/2010 Pg: 3 of 3