United States v. Mark Aranjo , 599 F. App'x 118 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4544
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    MARK ARANJO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
    District Judge. (3:13-cr-00270-MOC-1)
    Submitted:   March 26, 2015                 Decided:   April 10, 2015
    Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mark Aranjo appeals the district court’s order revoking his
    supervised       release       and     sentencing           him     to     eight      months’
    imprisonment      and    one    year      of       supervised       release.        Aranjo’s
    counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds
    for appeal but questioning whether (a) the district court erred
    in revoking Aranjo’s supervised release, (b) Aranjo’s sentence
    is unreasonable, and (c) Aranjo had ineffective assistance of
    counsel.        Aranjo was advised of his right to file a pro se
    supplemental brief, but he has not filed one.                         We affirm in part
    and dismiss in part.
    On July 17, 2014, while this appeal was pending, Aranjo’s
    prison   term     ended,       and   he    began          serving    his     new    term   of
    supervised release.         We may address sua sponte whether Aranjo’s
    challenge to his imprisonment has become moot, for mootness is a
    jurisdictional question “grounded in the ‘case-or-controversy’
    requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.”                                  United
    States     v.    Springer,       
    715 F.3d 535
    ,     540     (4th     Cir.      2013)
    (referencing      U.S.     Const.       art. III,           § 2,     cl. 1).          Because
    Aranjo’s eight-month prison term has expired, and no collateral
    consequences      thereof      appear     on       the    record,    there     is   no   live
    controversy regarding this issue.                        See United States v. Hardy,
    
    545 F.3d 280
    , 283-84 (4th Cir. 2008).                       Aranjo’s challenge to his
    2
    prison sentence is therefore moot, and we dismiss this portion
    of the appeal.
    However, we retain jurisdiction to review his current term
    of     supervised     release        and    the       district       court’s     revocation
    decision.        Because      Aranjo       admitted        all    four     of   the    charged
    supervised release violations, the district court’s revocation
    decision was proper.              See United States v. Pregent, 
    190 F.3d 279
    , 283 (4th Cir. 1999).                Turning to the court’s imposition of
    the additional term of supervised release, we conclude that the
    district court’s imposition of the one-year term was not plain
    error.      See United States v. Webb, 
    738 F.3d 638
    , 640 (4th Cir.
    2013) (stating standard of review); United States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    ,    439    (4th      Cir.    2006).           Finally,    we     deem     Aranjo’s
    ineffective-assistance            claim     inappropriate            for    resolution     on
    direct appeal because the record does not conclusively establish
    his counsel’s ineffectiveness.                      See United States v. Baptiste,
    
    596 F.3d 214
    , 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
    In   accordance        with      Anders,      we    have    reviewed      the    entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
    appeal.        We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot insofar as
    Aranjo challenges his expired term of imprisonment and affirm
    the    remainder      of   the    district          court’s      judgment.       This    Court
    requires that counsel inform Aranjo, in writing, of the right to
    petition     the    Supreme      Court     of       the   United     States     for    further
    3
    review.    If    Aranjo      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 Aranjo.
    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
    4