United States v. Tina Belcastro

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Tina Belcastro

521 F. App'x 273

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 2013

Docket12-4907

StatusUnpublished

This text of 521 F. App'x 273 (United States v. Tina Belcastro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Tina Belcastro, 521 F. App'x 273 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tina Belcastro appeals her conviction and eight-month sentence imposed pursuant to her guilty plea to distributing Bu-prenorphine with 1000 feet of public housing. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred by not sentencing Belcas-tro to a lower sentence and by providing inadequate explanation for the sentence. Neither Belcastro nor the Government has filed a brief. After a review of the entire record, we affirm.

Belcastro was released from prison on February 15, 2013, to serve her three-year supervised release term. Thus, there is no longer any live controversy regarding the length of Belcastro’s confinement, and her challenge to the length of her prison term is therefore moot. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th cir.2004). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part, insofar as it challenges the length of Belcastro’s prison sentence.

We have reviewed the remainder of the record in accordance with Anders, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Belcastro’s conviction as well as her term of supervised release. This court requires that counsel inform *274 Belcastro in writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Belcastro 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 Belcastro. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tina Belcastro appeals her conviction and eight-month sentence imposed pursuant to her guilty plea to distributing Bu-prenorphine with 1000 feet of public housing. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred by not sentencing Belcas-tro to a lower sentence and by providing inadequate explanation for the sentence. Neither Belcastro nor the Government has filed a brief. After a review of the entire record, we affirm.

Belcastro was released from prison on February 15, 2013, to serve her three-year supervised release term. Thus, there is no longer any live controversy regarding the length of Belcastro’s confinement, and her challenge to the length of her prison term is therefore moot. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th cir.2004). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part, insofar as it challenges the length of Belcastro’s prison sentence.

We have reviewed the remainder of the record in accordance with Anders, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Belcastro’s conviction as well as her term of supervised release. This court requires that counsel inform *274 Belcastro in writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Belcastro 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 Belcastro. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 F. App'x 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tina-belcastro-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack