Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Matthew WARD, also known as Tony Matthew Spurlock, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-28
Citations: 196 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 04-51165
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Matthew WARD, also known as Tony Matthew Spurlock, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 316–316

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Matthew WARD, also known as Tony Matthew Spurlock, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-51165
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 28, 2006.
Mark Randolph Stelmach, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kimberly S. Keller, The Keller Group, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tony Matthew Ward appeals the 24-month sentence the district court imposed when it revoked his supervised release.
"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). The United States Constitution limits this court's jurisdiction to live cases and controversies. U.S. Const, art. III, § 2. 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." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).
During the pendency of this appeal, Ward completed his imprisonment term, and he has been released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The district court's order revoking Ward'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.