
    UNITED STATES of America v. Theresa THIEMANN, Appellant.
    No. 06-5026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 9, 2008.
    Filed: June 6, 2008.
    Barbara K. Whitaker, Office of United States Attorney, Scranton, PA, for United States of America.
    Ronald A. Krauss, Office of Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, PA, for Theresa Thiemann.
    BEFORE: BARRY and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
    
      
       Hon. Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Theresa Thiemann pled guilty to bank larceny and was sentenced at the upper end of the suggested Guideline range to six months’ incarceration followed by one year of supervised release. This appeal followed.

Thiemann’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

I.

Thiemann was released from prison on March 20, 2007, and her supervised release term has expired. This means that if this appeal consisted solely of an attack on her sentence of incarceration and/or her supervised release, it would be moot and we would be without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Cf. United. States v. Jackson, 523 F.3d 234 (3d Cir.2008). However, because Thiemann’s conviction carries collateral consequences and because we are required under Anders to independently review that conviction, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S.Ct. 1396.

II.

We have reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel for the government and Thiemann that there are no non-frivolous issues presented by this appeal. Specifically, there are no non-frivolous issues with respect to jurisdiction or with respect to the validity or voluntariness of Thiemann’s plea; and, as explained above, any issue with respect to the legality or reasonableness of her sentence is moot. We find no error.

III.

We are satisfied that Thiemann’s counsel has adequately fulfilled the requirements of Rule 109.2, and his motion to withdraw will be granted. The issues presented in this appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.  