Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwan HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 04-31168
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwan HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 798–798

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwan HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-31168
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Duane Evans, William P. Gibbens, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert F. Barnard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, Federal Public Defender Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwan Harris appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of 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. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The case-or-controversy 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.
Harris has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Harris'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.