Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnell SNEED, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-09
Citations: 473 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 11-4739
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darnell SNEED, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darnell SNEED, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-4739.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2012.
Decided: May 9, 2012.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, LaKeytria W. Felder, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darnell Sneed appeals the district court's judgment revoking his probation and imposing ninety days' imprisonment. Sneed's attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Sneed's sentence was unreasonable. Sneed was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because Sneed has completed his term of imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and determined that Sneed has been discharged from federal custody and that his sentence did not include a term of supervised release. Because Sneed has not alleged continuing collateral consequences from the district court's judgment on revocation of probation, and no such consequences are apparent from the record, we conclude Sneed's appeal is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion and dismiss Sneed's appeal as moot.
This court requires that counsel inform Sneed, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sneed 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 Sneed.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.