UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4642

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KRISTY MICHELLE STOWERS, a/k/a Kristy Michele Stowers, a/k/a Kristy 

Sparger,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-PMS-22)

Submitted: March 8, 2018 Decided: March 22, 2018

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana R. Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, P.L.C., Staunton, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean 

Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kristy Michelle Stowers appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her 

supervised release and imposing a sentence of three months of imprisonment and an 

additional 36 months of supervised release. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal but questioning whether the prison term is plainly unreasonable and 

whether the district court erred by imposing a special condition of supervised release 

requiring Stowers to spend six months at a halfway house. We affirm in part and dismiss 

in part.

Stowers first challenges her three-month sentence. We observe that, during the 

pendency of this appeal, Stowers was released from prison and began serving the additional 

supervised release term. As a result, Stowers’ appeal of her prison sentence is moot. See

United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss this 

portion of the appeal.

Counsel also questions the district court’s imposition of a six-month term at a 

halfway house as a special condition of supervised release. Because Stowers did not object 

in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 

416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015). We readily conclude that, as a result of the nature and 

circumstances of Stowers’ violations of supervised release, her history and characteristics, 

and the opportunity to provide appropriate training and treatment, the district court did not 

err in requiring Stowers to spend six months at a halfway house. See United States v. 

Douglas, 850 F.3d 660, 663 (4th Cir. 2017) (providing standard).
3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore dismiss as moot the appeal of the 

prison sentence and affirm the revocation judgment in all other respects. This court 

requires that counsel inform Stowers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If Stowers 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 Stowers.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART