Court Opinion

ID: 9381086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 20:00:53.253426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:29.766625
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10562    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10562
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       WILLIAM LESLIE NEW,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00116-TFM-B-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10562     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-10562

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Domingo Soto, appointed counsel for William Leslie New
       in this appeal from the district court’s judgment revoking New’s
       supervised release and ordering him imprisoned, has filed a motion
       to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to
       Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Before we can consider
       counsel’s motion, however, we must determine whether we have
       jurisdiction.
              In 2015, New was convicted of making a false statement in
       connection with an attempt to acquire a firearm and was sentenced
       to 21 months’ imprisonment followed by a term of supervised re-
       lease. On multiple occasions, the district court found that New had
       violated the terms of his supervised release and revoked his super-
       vised release. Most recently, in October 2021, the district court
       found that New violated the terms of his supervised release by us-
       ing cocaine. The district court revoked New’s supervised release
       and sentenced him to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment, with no
       supervised release term to follow. The court ordered New to begin
       serving his sentence in January 2022. New appealed in February
       2022. Soto was later appointed to represent New and, seeing no
       arguable issue of merit, moved to withdraw. New was released
       from imprisonment in January 2023.
USCA11 Case: 22-10562      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-10562                Opinion of the Court                         3

               Because of New’s release, we must consider whether this ap-
       peal is moot. We have no authority “to give opinions upon moot
       questions . . . or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot
       affect the matter in issue in the case before [us].” Christian Coal. of
       Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011) (in-
       ternal quotation marks omitted). A case is moot “when it no longer
       presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give
       meaningful relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). One is-
       sue in a case may become moot, but the case as a whole remains
       alive so long as other issues have not become moot. Univ. of Tex.
       v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 394 (1981).
               A defendant’s release from custody does not moot his case
       so long as he is still serving a term of supervised release because he
       remains subject to a restraint on liberty. United States v. Page,
       69 F.3d 482, 487 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995). In addition, the case of a de-
       fendant who is no longer in custody or serving a term of supervised
       release is not moot so long as the defendant experiences some con-
       tinuing collateral consequence from the judgment he is seeking to
       challenge. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998). In general, we
       “presume that a wrongful criminal conviction has continuing col-
       lateral consequences.” Id. But this same presumption does not ap-
       ply when a defendant who is no longer in custody or serving a term
       of supervised release challenges a judgment that revoked his super-
       vised release. See id. at 14. Such a defendant may challenge a revo-
       cation decision only if he can show that he faces actual collateral
USCA11 Case: 22-10562     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-10562

       consequences as a result of the revocation decision. See Mattern v.
       Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 494 F.3d 1282, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2007).
              Here, the judgment New is appealing did not convict him of
       any crime or impose any term of supervised release. Instead, it
       found that he had violated the terms of his supervised release and
       ordered him reincarcerated on a prior conviction. That period of
       reincarceration “is now over[] and cannot be undone.” Spencer,
       523 U.S. at 8. In addition, we see no indication that New faces any
       collateral consequence as a result of the revocation decision. Ac-
       cordingly, we conclude that this appeal no longer presents a live
       controversy as to which we can grant meaningful relief.
             We DISMISS this appeal as moot and DENY AS MOOT all
       pending motions, including Soto’s motion to withdraw.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.