Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0816-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon Ernesto MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11602 Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 18, 2017
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brandon Elliott Beck, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Ramon Ernesto Martinez, Pro Se
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Ernesto Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Calif ornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez has not filed a response.

During the pendency of this appeal, Martinez completed the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release and was released from custody. Because Martinez has not shown that he will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the revocation of his supervised release and because no additional term of supervised release was imposed, the instant appeal does not present a case or controversy and this court lacks jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT, and counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.