Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Eugene BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 231 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 05-41583
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Eugene BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 361–361

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry Eugene BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41583
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2007.
Alan Reeve Jackson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Barry Eugene Brooks, Gilmer, TX, pro se.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Barry Eugene Brooks appeals from the district court's order revoking 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. 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." Id.
Brooks has served the nine-month prison sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Brooks'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.