UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JESSIE BLOOMFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:09-cr-01135-RBH-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jessie Bloomfield appeals the district 

court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and 

imposing a four-month sentence with no further term of 

supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether 

Bloomfield’s revocation sentence is reasonable. Because 

Bloomfield’s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal. 

Bloomfield’s present term of supervised release began 

in September 2012. In March 2013, the probation officer 

petitioned the court for an arrest warrant, alleging that 

Bloomfield had violated several terms of his supervised release. 

After Bloomfield admitted to violating these terms of his 

supervised release, the court revoked his supervised release and 

sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment, but did not impose 

an additional term of supervised release. 

During the pendency of this appeal, Bloomfield was 

released from imprisonment. Accordingly, his argument 

challenging the reasonableness of his revocation sentence is 

moot. See United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 282-85 (4th 

Cir. 2008) (holding that, when defendant is no longer serving 

revocation sentence and no additional term of supervised release 

is imposed, appeal is moot); Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 
3

F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (whether this court is “presented 

with a live case or controversy is a question [the court] may 

raise sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of the Article 

III jurisdiction of the courts” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. This court requires 

that counsel inform Bloomfield, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Bloomfield 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 Bloomfield. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED