Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony L. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-19
Citations: 392 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 09-2925
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony L. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony L. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-2925.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 12, 2010.
Decided Aug. 19, 2010.
Philip Benson, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kent V. Anderson, Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Anthony L. Rogers, Fort Wayne, IN, pro se.
Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Anthony Rogers appeals from an order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a term of reimprisonment without further supervised release. Our review of the case suggested that Rogers was released from prison shortly after his appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), so we questioned whether the appeal was moot. We asked counsel to file a supplemental statement addressing that point. Counsel confirms that Rogers has been released from custody without further supervision and states that he is not aware of any collateral consequences of the revocation.
Because Rogers has already completed his sentence and faces no collateral consequences of the revocation of supervised release, this appeal can no longer provide him any relief. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283-85 (4th Cir.2008); United States v. Mazzillo, 373 F.3d 181, 182 (1st Cir.2004); United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150, 1152-53 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Shabazz, 230 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.