United States v. Bret Sobolewski

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: March 6, 2024
• Docket: 23-1681
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 23-1681 ______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRET SOBOLEWSKI, Appellant ______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2-03-cr-00830-001) U.S. District Judge: Honorable John M. Younge ______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 5, 2024 ______________

Before: SHWARTZ, RENDELL, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 6, 2024) ______________

OPINION ______________

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Bret Sobolewski appeals the District Court’s judgment that he violated his terms

of supervised release. Because Sobolewski has completed his sentence and has not

shown the violation has any collateral consequences, his appeal is therefore moot. Thus,

we will grant his counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and dismiss his appeal.

I

In 2005, Sobolewski was convicted of conspiracy to commit a series of bank

robbery along with completing, or aiding and abetting, those robberies. He was

sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, restitution, and a

special assessment. We affirmed his judgment and conviction. United States v.

Sobolewski, 229 F. App’x 73, 77 (3d Cir. 2007) (nonprecedential). Several years later,

the District Court resentenced Sobolewski to 200 months’ imprisonment and other

penalties. We affirmed this new judgment. United States v. Sobolewski, No. 10 Crim.

2867 (3d Cir. June 27, 2011).

In May 2020, Sobolewski was released from custody, and several months later he

violated his conditions of release. The District Court revoked his supervised release and

sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment with one year of supervised release to

follow, as well as mental health and drug treatment.

After Sobolewski completed the new prison term, he violated his supervised

release again. The probation office filed a petition, asserting that Sobolewski violated his

supervised release by: (1) violating the state drug and motor vehicle laws; (2) not

2 reporting his state arrest; (3) traveling outside of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

without permission; (4) using cocaine; (5) absconding from probation; and (6) refusing to

participate in drug and mental health treatment. In an amended petition, the probation

office alleged that Sobolewski was arrested for forgery.

Sobolewski admitted to the conduct in the initial petition in exchange for dismissal

of the amended petition. The District Court then sentenced him to ten months’

imprisonment with no further supervised release to follow.

Sobolewski appeals, and his counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).1 While this appeal was pending, Sobolewski completed

the prison term and is no longer on federal supervision.

II2

We must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We lack

jurisdiction to review a revocation of supervised release when: (1) a defendant has

completely served his sentence for the revocation, (2) no supervised release remains, and

(3) he has not shown that the revocation of his supervised release will result in collateral

consequences. See United States v. Huff, 703 F.3d 609, 611-12 (3d Cir. 2013)). Because

Sobolewski has completed his term, is not subject to additional supervised release, and

has not attempted to show that he will suffer any collateral consequences from the

supervised release revocation, his appeal is moot.

1 Sobolewski did not file his own pro se brief despite having the option to do so. 2 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and our review of jurisdictional issues is plenary. United States v. Williams, 369 F.3d 250, 252 (3d Cir. 2004). 3 III

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss this appeal.