United States v. Williams , 168 F. App'x 586 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 22, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40997, c/w
Nos. 04-41045 & 04-41610
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRY W. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CR-53-RAS-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry W. Williams has appealed the district court’s order
modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require his
placement in a community corrections center. Williams has also
appealed the district court’s orders denying his motions for
statewide travel authorization during the 2004–05 holiday season
and to have grand jury proceedings unsealed and transcribed and
to unseal and transcribe all records. These three appeals have
been consolidated.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-40997 c/w
Nos. 04-41045 & 04-41610
-2-
Williams’s appointed counsel, the Federal Public Defender,
has moved for leave to withdraw, pursuant to Anders v. State of
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the appeal from
the modification of the conditions of Williams’s supervised
release presents no nonfrivolous issue. Williams has filed a
response to the motion.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). After this appeal was filed, Williams’s supervision
was revoked on the basis of new and continuing violations of the
conditions of his supervised release and he has been sentenced to
an additional term of imprisonment with no further supervision.
Because Williams is no longer under supervision and will not be
subject to supervision after he has served his additional term of
imprisonment, the appeals from the orders modifying the
conditions of his supervised release and denying Williams’s
request for leave to travel out of state are moot. See Spencer
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7–14 (1998). The motions to have grand
jury proceedings unsealed and transcribed, and to unseal and
transcribe all records were predicated on the reinstatement of
Williams’s then pending appeal in United States v. Williams, No.
04-40136 (5th Cir. July 22, 2005) (unpublished). Because that
appeal has been decided, the appeal from the order denying those
motions is moot.
No. 04-40997 c/w
Nos. 04-41045 & 04-41610
-3-
Because the consolidated appeals are moot, this court lacks
jurisdiction. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED AS
UNNECESSARY and the appeal is DISMISSED.