United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20226
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE LEE RANDEL, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-156-ALL
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Willie
Lee Randel, Jr., in his appeal of the order revoking his term of
supervised release has filed a motion and a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Randel has not
filed a response to his counsel’s 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). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal
court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20226
-2-
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy
requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury
other than the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some
‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the
suit is to be maintained.” Id.
Randel has served the sentence that was imposed upon the
revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking
Randel’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of
supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy
for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.
MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.