Court Opinion

ID: 9959536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 00:00:32.626987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.881368
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10942            Document: 39-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/11/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10942
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  April 11, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Kenshetha Brooks,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:19-CR-175-1
                   ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kenshetha
Brooks has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Brooks has not filed a response.
       During the pendency of this appeal, Brooks completed the sentence

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10942          Document: 39-1    Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/11/2024

                                 No. 23-10942

imposed on revocation of supervised release and was released from custody.
Because she has not shown that she will suffer collateral consequences as a
result of the revocation of her 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 (1998).
       Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT, and counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

                                      2