Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-26
Citations: 546 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 13-50010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 546
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50010.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Nov. 26, 2013.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Vibhav Mittal, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robison D. Harley, Jr., Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Luis Rivera, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Rivera appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release and sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rivera's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Rivera the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
A review of the record indicates that this appeal is moot because Rivera has completed his custodial sentence and is not serving a term of supervised release. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). We accordingly dismiss this appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.