Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toney Dwayne ROSS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 822
Docket Number: No. 04-11000
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toney Dwayne ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 822–823

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toney Dwayne ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-11000
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Delonia Anita Watson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Toney Dwayne Ross appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of 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). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (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.
Ross has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Ross'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.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.