Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clive Milton WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 193 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 04-50449
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clive Milton WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: ABARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clive Milton WILSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50449.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 27, 2006.
Jason M. Otha, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Berg, Esq., Law Offices of Michael S. Berg, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ABARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Wilson’s Februaiy 6, 2006, motion for argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Clive Milton Wilson appeals from the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 21-month sentence. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that a defendant lacks standing to challenge a completed sentence); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (holding that revocation of parole does not create collateral consequences sufficient to extend standing beyond expiration of sentence and rejecting as moot a challenge to an allegedly erroneous parole revocation).
Wilson's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
The appeal is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.