Court Opinion

ID: 9948446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 01:00:43.602383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:42.202722
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1231       Document: 010111010864    Date Filed: 03/06/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 6, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff-Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 23-1231
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00355-RM-1)
  KILO DENZEL PACE,                                           (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       In 2018 Kilo Denzel Pace pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of

 a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Pace to

 fifteen months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a term of three years of supervised

 release. The district court revoked Pace’s supervised release in 2021 and sentenced

 him to six months’ imprisonment and eighteen additional months’ supervised release.

 In 2023 Pace violated the terms of his second supervised release, and the district

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-1231    Document: 010111010864        Date Filed: 03/06/2024     Page: 2

 court once again revoked supervised release. The district court sentenced Pace to a

 term of nine months’ imprisonment, not to be followed by further supervised release.

 At that point, Pace had built up a significant bank of “jail credit” for time he had

 previously spent imprisoned that had not been credited toward any sentence. R. Vol.

 II at 5. Pace was thus effectively released from custody upon sentencing because his

 jail credit consumed the entirety of the nine-month sentence. Anders Br. at 3.

       Pace appealed. However, his appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief,

 stating that there are no non-frivolous claims to be brought on appeal and seeking

 leave to withdraw from representing Pace. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

 744 (1967). Upon an independent review of the record, we agree that there are no

 non-frivolous arguments that Pace may bring on appeal, as the expiration of his

 sentence has rendered his appeal moot. We thus grant counsel’s motion and dismiss

 the appeal.

                                            I.

       In September 2017, Pace was indicted on one count of felon in possession of a

 firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pace pleaded guilty to the count in the

 indictment on December 4, 2017. The district court sentenced Pace on March 2,

 2018 to fifteen months’ imprisonment in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to be

 followed by three years of supervised release. Pace appealed his initial sentence, but

 the appeal was voluntarily dismissed. See United States v. Pace, No. 18-1099.

       Following his release from prison in October of 2018, Pace struggled to adhere

 to the terms of his supervised release. On August 5, 2021, he appeared before the

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-1231     Document: 010111010864        Date Filed: 03/06/2024     Page: 3

 district court for a supervised release violation hearing, where he admitted to

 violating several conditions of his supervised release. The district court sentenced

 Pace to six months’ imprisonment to be followed by an eighteen-month term of

 supervised release. Because Pace had accrued significant jail credit time—seventeen

 months at that point—he began his term of supervised release immediately.

         Pace once again struggled to stay within the bounds of his supervised release.

 On February 9, 2022, Probation Officer Stephanie Hartz filed a petition for a warrant,

 alleging that Pace had committed seven violations of his supervised release. See R.

 Vol. I at 11–13. These violations included possession and use of marijuana, failure

 to participate in treatment and testing, failure to work regularly, and failure to notify

 the probation office of a change in residence. At the July 14, 2023 revocation

 hearing, Pace admitted to the violations alleged in the petition for a warrant. The

 resulting guideline range was five to eleven months’ imprisonment. The district

 court sentenced Pace to nine months’ imprisonment, with no term of supervised

 release to follow. The court requested in its judgment that “[t]o the extent possible

 the BOP will expedite the calculation and designation, because it is the Court’s belief

 that [Pace] has overserved time available to him that will consume the entirety of the

 sentence that was just imposed.” R. Vol. I at 21. Per Pace’s counsel, Pace was

 released from custody without ever being transferred to a BOP facility. Anders Br. at

 3–4. It is uncontested that Pace has finished serving the sentence imposed in this

 case.

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-1231     Document: 010111010864        Date Filed: 03/06/2024     Page: 4

       Pace wishes to challenge the revocation of his supervised release and

 requested his counsel file this appeal. See Anders Br. at 4–7. Counsel then filed the

 Anders brief before us. Neither Pace nor the government submitted a response brief.

                                            II.

       Appellate counsel’s “role as advocate requires that he support his client’s

 appeal to the best of his ability.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. However, when counsel

 for the defendant has found the case to be “wholly frivolous, after a conscientious

 examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.”

 Id. Once counsel files an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a “full examination

 of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. If, after

 performing an independent review of the record, we agree with counsel, then we may

 grant his request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id. In this case, we agree with

 counsel.

       Pace has no non-frivolous grounds for appeal because the case is moot.

 Article III of the United States Constitution extends our jurisdiction only to cases or

 controversies. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[W]hen the injury for which an

 appellant seeks judicial relief disappears or is resolved extrajudicially prior to the

 appellate court’s decision, the appellant can no longer satisfy the Article III case or

 controversy jurisdictional requirement and the appeal is moot.” United States v.

 Meyers, 200 F.3d 715, 718 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361,

 363 (1987)). An appeal challenging a sentence is rendered moot when the defendant

 fully serves the sentence, “unless he can show that he remains subject to collateral

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-1231    Document: 010111010864        Date Filed: 03/06/2024    Page: 5

 consequences even after completing the sentence.” United States v. Sandoval-

 Enrique, 870 F.3d 1207, 1210–11 (10th Cir. 2017). In Meyers we held that “when a

 defendant appeals the revocation of his supervised release and resulting

 imprisonment and has completed that term of imprisonment, the potential impact of

 the revocation order and sentence on possible later sentencing proceedings does not

 constitute a sufficient collateral consequence to defeat mootness.” 200 F.3d at 722.

 It is undisputed that Pace has completed his sentence. And counsel does not identify,

 nor can we surmise, a potential collateral consequence of the revocation of Pace’s

 supervised release beyond hypothetical impacts on sentencing proceedings in the

 future. Pace’s appeal is thus moot under the binding precedent of this circuit, and we

 lack jurisdiction to consider the challenge to the revocation of his supervised release.

                                           III.

       For the reasons stated above, we agree with counsel that there is no non-

 frivolous basis for appeal. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw

 and DISMISS the appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Allison H. Eid
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            5