Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon Ernesto MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-18
Citations: 695 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 16-11602 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon Ernesto MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon Ernesto MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11602 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 18, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brandon Elliott Beck, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Ramon Ernesto Martinez, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Ernesto Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Calif ornia, 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). Martinez has not filed a response.
During the pendency of this appeal, Martinez completed the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release and was released from custody. Because Martinez has not shown that he will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the revocation of his supervised release and because no additional term of supervised release was imposed, the instant appeal does not present a case or controversy and this court lacks jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.