Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01205/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randall E. Springen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted January 7, 2020 

Decided January 7, 2020 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge 

No. 19-1205 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RANDALL E. SPRINGEN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. 

No. 03-cr-135-bbc-1 

Barbara B. Crabb, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Randall Springen was convicted of, and served a prison sentence for, distribution 

of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). While on supervised release, he tested 

positive for cocaine and failed to report to his probation officer. Although Springen 

challenged the reliability of the drug tests, the district court ruled that the tests were 

sufficiently trustworthy and found that Springen violated the terms of his supervision. 

The court revoked Springen’s supervised release and sentenced him to five months’ 

imprisonment without any further supervised release. Springen filed a notice of appeal, 

but his appointed lawyer argues that this appeal is frivolous as moot—Springen’s 

sentence ended on June 28, 2019—and seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Springen has not responded to counsel’s motion. See CIR.

R. 51(b). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 19-1205 Document: 15 Filed: 01/07/2020 Pages: 2
No. 19-1205 Page 2 

Counsel is correct that Springen’s appeal is moot. Bureau of Prisons records 

confirm that Springen was released on June 28, 2019. Because Springen has completed 

his sentence and faces no collateral consequences from the revocation of supervised 

release, this appeal can no longer provide him any relief. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 

1, 7, 12, 14 (1998). According to counsel, Springen wishes to continue with the appeal 

because, Springen believes, an appellate ruling that his drug test was unreliable could 

benefit future supervisees who are asked to take similar drug tests. But as counsel 

rightly concludes, a “possible, indirect benefit in a future lawsuit cannot save this case 

from mootness.” United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 937 (2011). 

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal as moot. 

Case: 19-1205 Document: 15 Filed: 01/07/2020 Pages: 2