Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Dane BOYKIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-04
Citations: 583 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 14-10209
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Dane BOYKIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Dane BOYKIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10209
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 4, 2014.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Denise Bridges Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendanb-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Larry Dane Boykin, Jr., in his appeal of his revocation of supervised release and resulting six-month sentence has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Boykin has not filed a response.
During the pendency of this appeal, Boykin completed the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release and was released from custody. Because no additional term of supervised release was imposed, the instant appeal is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.