Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0272-01.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. Tobias LYNN, also known as James R. White, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40810
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Alonzo Ramos, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent To-bias Lynn has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Lynn has not filed a response.

Article III, section 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual eases and controversies. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The case-or-eontroversy 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.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7, 118 S.Ct. 978.

Counsel asserts that there are no non-frivolous issues relating to the district court’s initial revocation of Lynn’s supervised release term in May 2007, Lynn’s 120-day restraint in a halfway house, and the continuation of supervised release with additional conditions of release. During the pendency of this appeal, the district court again revoked Lynn’s term of supervised release and sentenced him to six months in prison, which he has completed. The judgment imposed no further supervised release term. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. Counsel’s motion 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.