United States v. Harry Redds, Jr.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry Lee REDDS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Johnnie B. Rawlinson (author), Smith, Morgan Christen
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50320 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01835-BTM v. MEMORANDUM * HARRY LEE REDDS, Jr., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Harry Lee Redds, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Redds’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). record. We have provided Redds the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
A review of the record indicates that this appeal is moot because Redds’s supervised release has again been revoked. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
2 12-50320