Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lee BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-17
Citations: 180 F. App'x 527
Docket Number: No. 04-11269
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lee BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lee BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-11269
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 2006.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Daniel Lee Brown, Federal Correctional Institution, Big Spring, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lee Brown appeals from the district court's revocation of his supervised release term. The Federal Public Defend er appointed to represent Brown filed a motion for leave to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Brown has not filed a response.
We note that while this appeal was pending, Brown was released from prison. Because mootness implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy, it is a jurisdictional matter which we must raise sua sponte if necessary. Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Because the record reflects that Brown has been released and is not subject to any additional term of supervised release, there is no case or controversy for this court to address. See Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278; cf. United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal AS MOOT.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.