UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4661

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

GALEN CLIFTON SHAWVER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:00-cr-00262-TDS-2)

Submitted: May 5, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane K. Bryant, LAW OFFICE OF DUANE K. BRYANT, High Point, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In 2001, a federal jury convicted Galen Clifton Shawver of 

several counts of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, and money 

laundering. He was sentenced to 132 months of imprisonment,

followed by 3 years of supervised release. The district court 

subsequently found that Shawver had violated the terms of his 

supervised release. The court revoked Shawver’s supervised 

release and sentenced him to 2 months of imprisonment, followed 

by 34 months of supervised release.

After his release from incarceration, the court again 

revoked Shawver’s supervised release and sentenced him to 30 

days of imprisonment, without imposing a further term of 

supervised release. Shawver appeals, and on appeal counsel has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), questioning whether the court abused its discretion in 

revoking Shawver’s supervised release and whether his sentence 

is plainly unreasonable. Shawver has also filed a pro se 

supplemental brief raising additional issues. During the 

pendency of this appeal, Shawver was released from 

incarceration. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss 

Shawver’s appeal as moot.

Although the parties have not raised the issue, we may 

address the issue of mootness sua sponte, “since mootness goes 

to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.” 
3

Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] case is moot when the 

issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a 

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” United States v. 

Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Upon the expiration of a defendant’s sentence 

“some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended 

incarceration or parole -- some collateral consequence of the 

conviction -- must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Shawver has been unconditionally released from 

incarceration for the supervised release revocation. Shawver 

has failed to identify any collateral consequences stemming from 

that revocation and we can discern none. See Hardy, 545 F.3d at 

284-85. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot and deny 

Shawver’s motion to expedite the decision.

This court requires that counsel inform Shawver, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Shawver 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 Shawver. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
4

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED