Court Opinion

ID: 67820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 06:25:58+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.616765
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                           August 18, 2009
                                     No. 08-40818
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCO GARCIA-ECHAVERRIA,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:06-CR-1122-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marco Garcia-
Echaverria has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia-Echaverria has not filed
a response.
       “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,
section 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                                  No. 08-40818

controversies. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (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.
      Counsel asserts that there are no nonfrivolous issues relating to the
district court’s revocation of Garcia-Echaverria’s supervised release and sentence
of three months in prison.      During the pendency of this appeal, Garcia-
Echaverria completed his three-month term of imprisonment. The judgment
imposed no further supervised release term. Accordingly, there is no case or
controversy for this court to address, and this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

                                        2