Court Opinion

ID: 9375080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:51.140306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.768235
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6174      Doc: 39         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6174

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TITO LEMONT KNOX,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:06-cr-00269-HMH-1)

        Submitted: January 26, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Miller W. Shealy, Jr., MILLER SHEALY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6174      Doc: 39          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In June 2007, Tito Lemont Knox was found not guilty by reason of insanity of being

        a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) & 18 U.S.C.

        § 924(a)(2), (e). Knox was released from a federal treatment facility pursuant to the district

        court’s April 19, 2016, conditional release order, which imposed 11 conditions on Knox’s

        release. On December 2, 2021, Knox’s probation officer filed a Petition for Warrant or

        Summons for Offender Under Supervision (hereinafter “Petition”), alleging two violations

        of the conditional release order. In response to information provided by the parties relevant

        to this Petition, the district court entered an opinion and order amending two of the

        conditions. Knox thereafter filed a pro se notice of appeal.

               On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), asserting error by the district court in amending the April 2016 conditional release

        order without first obtaining an updated psychiatric evaluation and allowing Knox the

        opportunity to respond to and contest those findings. Counsel’s brief acknowledges,

        though, that this appeal may be moot because the district court was slated to hold a hearing

        at which this issue may be addressed and resolved. True to this projection, review of the

        district court’s docket confirms that, two days after the Anders brief was filed, the

        magistrate judge ordered Knox to undergo another psychiatric evaluation, which has since

        been completed.

               As explained below, we agree with counsel’s suggestion of mootness as to the raised

        issue and thus dismiss this appeal in part. And consistent with our obligation under Anders,

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6174      Doc: 39          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        we have reviewed the entirety of the record for any nonfrivolous issues and found none.

        Accordingly, we also affirm in part.

               “A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties

        lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809

        (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Mootness has been described as the

        doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at

        the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence

        (mootness).”    Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763

        (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A case can be rendered moot by “a

        change in factual circumstances” or a legal development. Id. “If an event occurs during

        the pendency of an appeal that makes it impossible for a court to grant effective relief to a

        prevailing party, then the appeal must be dismissed as moot.” Fleet Feet, Inc. v. NIKE,

        Inc., 986 F.3d 458, 463 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               First, we agree that this appeal should be dismissed as moot as to the issue identified

        in the Anders brief. The sole assignment of error relates to the district court’s order

        amending the April 2016 conditional release order without further evaluating Knox’s

        psychiatric issues, treatment needs, or the risk of harm to himself or others. However,

        while this appeal was pending, the magistrate judge granted the Government’s motion for

        a full psychiatric evaluation—the very relief advocated for in counsel’s brief. Accordingly,

        we hold that this issue is rendered moot by the district court’s subsequent actions in

        ordering the preparation of another psychiatric evaluation, which has since been completed

        and is pending review by the district court. See Simmons, 634 F.3d at 763 (“Generally

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6174      Doc: 39         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        speaking, one such factual circumstance mooting a claim arises when the claimant receives

        the relief he or she sought to obtain through the claim.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we

        dismiss the appeal in part.

               Next, in accordance with Anders, we observe that our review of the record did not

        reveal any nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm in part as to the remainder of the

        appeal. Finally, we deny Knox’s motions to remove his attorney and to transfer this appeal

        to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

               This court requires that counsel inform Knox, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Knox 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 Knox. 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 in the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART;
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                     4